Dear all,

I do support the creation of a place where APN and its requirements as well as 
framework could be worked on.

In line with this support, I also want to point out the linkage to the 
discussion on ‘routing beyond reachability’ (RBR) and ‘semantic routing’, which 
were both presented at the recent IETF, in that APN fits the many examples 
given already for extending the functionality of the Internet’s capabilities 
beyond a mere reachability, possibly through APN-specific semantic enhancements 
that may be used for an app-specific traffic steering.

But it also shows, in my view, the need for a wider understanding of how 
various reachability mechanisms will need to architecturally fit together in 
order to work together, a point that both aforementioned efforts on RBR and 
semantic routing tried to make, also working through concerns of complexity 
raised in this specific APN discussion.

In conclusion, I support the creation of those APN effort but also hope we can 
make progress on the wider picture.

Best,

Dirk


From: rtgwg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura
Sent: 05 April 2022 19:15
To: RTGWG <[email protected]>; rtgwg-chairs <[email protected]>; 
[email protected]
Subject: RTGWG feedback on APN next steps

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]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

Reply via email to