Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-simple-va

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Just to put things in perspective I run a few searches today and wrote a 
little script to see what was the former GROW WG traffic for already 
issued RFCs when AD was Mr. Bonica:

RFC6198 -  5 people active on the list (-WG chairs and AD) - 26 messages
RFC6382 - 17 people active on the list (-WG chairs and AD) - 53 messages
RFC6396 - 12 people active on the list (-WG chairs and AD) - 87 messages
RFC6397 -  4 people active on the list (-WG chairs and AD) - 28 messages
RFC6441 - 13 people active on the list (-WG chairs and AD) - 47 messages

With discussions reg -va and simple-va we have this:

12 people active on the list (-WG chairs and AD) - 77 messages

Then as mentioned below one should consider other working groups like 
RRG or IDR also discussing the drafts in question. Last but not least to 
serve a community better one could get to some effort to google a bit 
and see that juniper-nsp had number of discussions on the very subject 
as well:

29 messages - 
http://markmail.org/message/wno3b62wv4j7m74e#query:+page:1+mid:vwb3rnzvfo4dawxi+state:results
j-nsp - [j-nsp] Summarize Global Table - 29 messages
Oct 25 - Oct 28 2011

9 messages - [j-nsp] full table ? 20 sep - oct 12 2011

17 messages on IDR -  draft on virtual aggregation Jul 2008 -
http://www.archivum.info/[e-mail]/2008-07/00008/Re-(Idr)-draft-on-virtual-aggregation.html

If those facts and numbers do not provide a sufficient basis to proceed 
with the -va and simple-va documents I do not know what does. If we 
think that we should move the discussion to ietf-interest or similar 
bigger alias to discuss what community support for a given work in IETF 
really means I will be happy to do that.

Best regards,
R.


> Hi,
>
> Actually Xiaohu reminded me what triggered my work in this area.
>
> As we all know Routing Research Group has met for number of years and as
> an outcome produced recommendation document which clearly states that
> before transitioning to loc/id split architecture operational community
> can use some form of aggregation where prefix growth would exceed
> forwarding capacity of deployed devices.
>
> Work on VA and simple-va provides a technology to address that precise
> recommendation.
>
> When IETF issues a RFC this becomes a recommendation for the community
> and not for WG it has been develop under. There is no reason for another
> last call of the set of documents in GROW WG. If there is one we need to
> include much broader community including mid and small operators which
> do not attend IETF as they will mostly benefit from this functionality.
>
> Many of them provided vendor who supports this enhancement in production
> os their requirements. Some of them are in native language and not in
> english.
>
> I recommend proceeding with the documents review by IESG. Otherwise I
> think we need to collect broader discussion when an AD is authorized to
> stop progressing useful and deployed technology. Our main goal in the
> IETF should be focused to serve operators to provide tools for them to
> realize new services. It should not be forum to reflect given vendor's
> internal preferences.
>
> Best regards,
> R.
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> One week ago, I polled the WG in an attempt to gage interest in
>> draft-ietf-grow-simple. The following responses were posted:
>>
>> - http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/grow/current/msg02228.html -
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/grow/current/msg02229.html
>>
>> While these two messages are not sufficient evidence of wide
>> community interest in this draft, they do suggest that there may be
>> interest out there. So, I will ask the chairs to conduct another WG
>> last call on this draft. In the last call announcement, please ask
>> folks who want the draft to be published to speak up. Silence will be
>> interpreted as disinterest.
>>
>> Until the WG last call is complete, I will transition the draft to
>> the AD-WATCHING state.
>>
>> Ron
> _______________________________________________
> GROW mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
>
>