Hi Dmitri, On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Papadimitriou, Dimitri (Dimitri) < [email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > > > As we are discussing it; it would be of interest to see if this working > group should not consider as part of its charter “extensions” for protocols > for which there is no dedicated working group anymore (other areas have > similar working groups e.g. TCPm) > I think that falls into work that doesn't fit in another WG. If it is small, then this charter lets RTGWG pick it up. If it's big, then rechartering would be necessary. Alia > > > Thanks, > > -dimitri. > > > > *From:* rtgwg [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Alvaro > Retana (aretana) > *Sent:* Monday, September 22, 2014 9:28 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Cc:* [email protected]; [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. > > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg > >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
