(two missing words!)
On 23/09/2014 15:49, Stewart Bryant wrote:
It's a pity we can't have linked I-Ds (like linked files) so that they
show up in the document trail in other relevant WGs.
- Stewart
On 23/09/2014 14:25, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
Hi Bruno,
On Sep 23, 2014, at 4:27 AM, <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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>
I think these can stay in the RTG WG for two reasons:
1. They don't require changes to the OSPF/ISIS protocol
encodings or protocol-specific changes to the mechanisms.
2. These drafts flow naturally from previous RTG WG drafts
and the general theme of avoiding/minimizing traffic loss in the
presence of failures.
Thanks,
Acee
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.
- 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] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
--
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
--
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
