Hi all, Clearly there are important technical concerns wrt APN that need to be addressed, as expressed by Robert. However, just as clearly there is a need for a forum beyond RTGWG where those discussions can take place and where new ways of solving valid technical problems can be explored. There is also a critical mass of people who are apparently interested in working on this. In light of this, formation of a working group makes sense to me and is something that I support.
--- Alex From: rtgwg <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Luis M. Contreras Sent: Monday, April 11, 2022 6:37 AM To: Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; rtgwg-chairs <[email protected]>; RTGWG <[email protected]> Subject: Re: RTGWG feedback on APN next steps Hi all, I see of interest the work on the APN concept, as expressed several times during BoFs and meetings. Moving the work to a dedicated WG seems to be a good and focused option. As mentioned by others in the list, terms and scope should be carefully defined for that purpose. So I support this way of moving forward. Thanks Luis El mar, 5 abr 2022 a las 19:15, Jeff Tantsura (<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>) escribió: Dear RTGWG, APN has been presented at RTGWG multiple times, and we see the evolution of the documents, including the scope of the problem and framework. This topic needs collaboration across WGs; we can foresee that not all issues to be addressed are within the charter of RTGWG and would span beyond the Routing area. RTGWG is chartered to provide a venue for new work, there are a couple of different options and one option for handling such new work would be to recommend the development of a new WG. The Chairs would then want to recommend that the ADs consider forming a focus WG, with a set of well defined deliverables and milestones (after delivery the group would be shut down) to work on a framework for APN. We would like to solicit the WG for opinions. Please note that comments about existing APN documents should be sent to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. This thread focuses on support or objection to recommending that the ADs consider the formation of a new WG. Please send your comments, support, or objectiond. Thanks! Cheers, Yingzhen Jeff _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Frtgwg&data=04%7C01%7Calex%40futurewei.com%7Cd7c390b478174c21b66408da1bc06862%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637852810463817537%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=8Vx0upXLowt7ZnnhXQyjlAl85nJuc3LbyM6c4FS35mA%3D&reserved=0> -- ___________________________________________ Luis M. Contreras [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Global CTIO unit / Telefonica
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
