Hi Bruno, Please see inline
Cheers, Jeff From: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 at 1:27 AM To: Alvaro Retana <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: rtgwg Rechartering Hi, Please find below 2 feedbacks: 1) Small topics “and may work on specific small topics that do not fit with an existing working group.” “RTGWG may also work on specific small topics that do not fit with an existing working group.” What about work which is general to Link State Protocols i.e. not specific to IS-IS and OSPF protocols. Should it be done once in RTGWG or twice in both IS-IS & OSPF WGs? e.g. draft-litkowski-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement<http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/90/slides/slides-90-rtgwg-1.pdf>, draft-decraene-rtgwg-backoff-algo<http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/90/slides/slides-90-rtgwg-2.pdf> [jeff] As you rightly mentioned the problem statement is evenly applicable to both OSPF and ISIS as well as neither require any protocol specific extensions, hence RTGWG is the right place to handle it 2) BoF/new WG “Options for handling new work include: - Developing a proposal for a BoF. - Developing a charter and establishing consensus for a new WG” It seems to me that so far the above work was currently performed in Routing Area plenary meetings. Do we want to move this to RTGWG? If so - I’m a bit concerned that such activities are less technically oriented, possibly political and involving many discussions and hence could delay the technical work in RTGWG. [jeff] the idea is to provide “low(er) entry” to potentially good but not ready for BoF ideas, as well as cover new network architectural areas, good example – DC (bgp-routing-large-dc), there are more to come It should not take years to develop new concepts if there’s enough interest from operators and vendors communities. What’s the remaining use of the Routing Area plenary meeting? A top down summary of latest WG status? Thanks, Regards, Bruno From: rtgwg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana (aretana) Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 9:28 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: rtgwg Rechartering Hi! I hope many/most of you followed the 'RTG Area Tuning' discussions over the last couple of months..and in the rtgarea meeting in Toronto. As part of the tuning it was proposed to clarify rtgwg's charter to better explain our mission of developing work proposals that do "not yet rise to the level where a new working group is justified, yet the topic does not fit with an existing working group, and it is either not ready for a BOF or a single BOF would not provide the time to ensure a mature proposal" (from the current charter). To that end we have written up a new charter with the help of the ADs. Please take a look: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-rtgwg/ As you read the proposed new charter, you should notice that there are 3 components to what the WG will be doing: 1. Larger topics on demand, such as the current FRR work. No change. 2. Small topics (that don't fit in other WGs). "An example of a small topic is a draft that might otherwise be AD-sponsored but which could benefit from the review and consensus that RTGWG can provide." We have already put forth for WG consideration a couple of these (draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc is an example). 3. Be an "optional venue to discuss, evaluate, support and develop proposals for new work in the Routing Area". I don't think this type of work is new to rtgwg: you may recall the energy efficiency work we discussed a few meetings ago. But we do spend more time discussing this item on the charter. Please send comments/question/concerns/suggestions in reply to this e-mail. Thanks! Alvaro. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
