[Idr] Re: WG LC on IDR Re-Charter (03/18/2026 - 04/01/2026)

Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn> Tue, 31 March 2026 04:12 UTC

Return-Path: <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
X-Original-To: idr@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: idr@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F174ED3DE733 for <idr@mail2.ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2026 21:12:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1774930346; bh=TwhRz8P426rhdFdAj2ayEe8Rk2ObAlnl1iWs1vkXhKc=; h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date; b=SWYQQ3BGgtAjTYp3v5x5r9Z6d9yI6x3txacJKg8MoLaG81I200ohMDQvJiU2mr9R/ 4chCeeTL8NLID4vB13anz8sMwZt3gd+0KRpwViXGu/NNMuXO02PlOeIK9090i0Jyd6 tmf+IiSX8X/h5cZQ5FH+ptNNLZCROvYzZTHf1CN8=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IKjJq46pHG_8 for <idr@mail2.ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2026 21:12:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-m49198.qiye.163.com (mail-m49198.qiye.163.com [45.254.49.198]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 430BDD3DE724 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2026 21:12:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LAPTOP09T7970K (unknown [219.142.69.75]) by smtp.qiye.163.com (Hmail) with ESMTP id 38ed4b3c4; Tue, 31 Mar 2026 12:12:14 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
From: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
To: 'Jeffrey Haas' <jhaas@pfrc.org>
References: <004401dcc027$744b4620$5ce1d260$@tsinghua.org.cn> <154FBFF5-B074-431D-8F3A-9A681F2D759C@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <154FBFF5-B074-431D-8F3A-9A681F2D759C@pfrc.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2026 12:12:26 +0800
Message-ID: <000001dcc0c4$95583060$c0089120$@tsinghua.org.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01DCC107.A37DE160"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQHJ3+xvAAsdq1ZlXALYou26h9XksgF7IVjPteHsOnA=
Content-Language: zh-cn
X-HM-Tid: 0a9d4217917103a2kunm0fc409964a95bc
X-HM-MType: 10
X-HM-Spam-Status: e1kfGhgUHx5ZQUpXWQgPGg8OCBgUHx5ZQUlOS1dZFg8aDwILHllBWSg2Ly tZV1koWUFKTEtLSjdXWS1ZQUlXWQ8JGhUIEh9ZQVkZQkpPVkMdTkxNH01MTUwdHVYeHw5VEwETFh oSFyQUDg9ZV1kYEgtZQVlJSkJVSk9JVU1CVUxOWVdZFhoPEhUdFFlBWU9LSFVKS0lPT09IVUpLS1 VKQktLWQY+
Message-ID-Hash: YN34CZE7ABIUCNDBIHDOZEKKL37GY4TM
X-Message-ID-Hash: YN34CZE7ABIUCNDBIHDOZEKKL37GY4TM
X-MailFrom: wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-idr.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: 'Keyur Patel' <keyur=40arrcus.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, 'idr' <idr@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Idr] Re: WG LC on IDR Re-Charter (03/18/2026 - 04/01/2026)
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/86Fqc-E65_2_nKOdZjOOV9ok-x8>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:idr-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:idr-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:idr-leave@ietf.org>

Hi, Jeffrey:

 

I have just finished one rough statistics about the current WG documents in
IDR(also the expired WG documents), and compare them with the loads on other
WGs within routing area.

 

IDR WG currently has 38+5 active WG documents(5 is in the IESG process), and
45 inactive WG documents.

 

The workload in other WGs within routing area are the followings:

BESS(21/15)

BFD(3/3)

BIER(7+3/20)

CATS(1+2/0)

CCAMP(13/18)

DETNET(9+2/1)

LISP(11+2/6)

LSR(16+4/5)

LSVR(1/1)

MANET(3/1)

MPLS(8+3/9)

NVO3(2/3)

PCE(20+4/3)

PIM(10+5/15)

RIFT(1+1/1)

ROLL(2/10)

RTGWG(9/10)

SAVNET(5/0)

SPRING(17+3/3)

TEAS(20+4/11)

TVR(1+2/0)

 

Only five WGs have the workload over 20 WG documents.

 

On the other hand, for the works within IDR WG, I have the following
statistics(track 1 represents the "IDR-SN" related documents; track 2
represents "IDR-EW" related documents

 

Active WG documents(38+5)

 

17drafts--track 1

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-link-mtu/>
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-link-mtu-11    

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy/>
draft-ietf-idr-ts-flowspec-srv6-policy-10   

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-fsv2-ip-basic/>
draft-ietf-idr-fsv2-ip-basic-04   

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-l2vpn/>
draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-l2vpn-27   

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip/>
draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip-06   

 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-network-slice-ts/>
draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-network-slice-ts-05   

 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext
/> draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext-21   

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-metric/>
draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-metric-04  

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu/>
draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu-14   

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-nvo3/>
draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-nvo3-23   

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-srv6/>
draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-srv6-08   

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-ext/>
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-ext-02  

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-bgp-only-fabric/>
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-bgp-only-fabric-04   

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-ifit/>
draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-ifit-11   

 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segme
nt/> draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-path-segment-10   

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-nrp/>
draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-nrp-08    

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-sr-vtn-mt/>
draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-sr-vtn-mt-14    

 

26 drafts--track 2

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-linklocal-capability/>
draft-ietf-idr-linklocal-capability-04   

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-5g-edge-service-metadata/>
draft-ietf-idr-5g-edge-service-metadata-31  

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model/>
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-19   

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-performance-routing/>
draft-ietf-idr-performance-routing-06   

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rpd/>
draft-ietf-idr-rpd-20   

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-node-target-ext-comm/>
draft-ietf-idr-node-target-ext-comm-03   

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr/>
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fwd-rr-05  

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-sdwan-edge-discovery/>
draft-ietf-idr-sdwan-edge-discovery-26   

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-dynamic-cap/>
draft-ietf-idr-dynamic-cap-19   

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rt-derived-community/>
draft-ietf-idr-rt-derived-community-07    

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-rpki-yang/>
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-rpki-yang-01  

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-generic-metric/>
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-generic-metric-02   

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bfd-strict-mode/>
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bfd-strict-mode-16  

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rfc4360-bis/>
draft-ietf-idr-rfc4360-bis-02   

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-mpbgp-extension-4map6/>
draft-ietf-idr-mpbgp-extension-4map6-05  

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-sr-te-policy-attr/>
draft-ietf-idr-sr-te-policy-attr-04  

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-mpls-elp/>
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-mpls-elp-00   

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-elc/>
draft-ietf-idr-elc-00  

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-next-next-hop-nodes/>
draft-ietf-idr-next-next-hop-nodes-00   

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ifit-capabilities/>
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ifit-capabilities-08   

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bier-te-path/>
draft-ietf-idr-bier-te-path-05   

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-rfc4271bis/>
draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-rfc4271bis-00   

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-vpn-prefix-orf/>
draft-ietf-idr-vpn-prefix-orf-33   

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-nhc/>
draft-ietf-idr-nhc-02   

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth/>
draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth-24 

 

Expired WG drafts (45)

14 drafts---track 1

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-segment/>
draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-segment-14

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp/>
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp-02

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-interfaceset/>
draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-interfaceset-06

 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-epe-over-l2bundle
/> draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-epe-over-l2bundle-00

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-te-path/>
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-te-path-02

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-v2/>
draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-v2-04

 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-isis-flood-reflectio
n/> draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-isis-flood-reflection-04

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect/>
draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-path-redirect-12

 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-service-segments/
> draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-service-segments-02

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-flowspec-label/>
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-flowspec-label-02

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-mpls-match/>
draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-mpls-match-02

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-sr-p2mp-policy/>
draft-ietf-idr-sr-p2mp-policy-00

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-ls-trill/>
draft-ietf-idr-ls-trill-05

 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-node-admin-tag-exten
sion/> draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-node-admin-tag-extension-03

 

 

31 drafts---track 2

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6/>
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6-07

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-multinexthop-attribute/>
draft-ietf-idr-multinexthop-attribute-04

 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-registered-wide-bgp-communi
ties/> draft-ietf-idr-registered-wide-bgp-communities-03

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities/>
draft-ietf-idr-wide-bgp-communities-12

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-legacy-rtc/>
draft-ietf-idr-legacy-rtc-11

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fsm-iana/>
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-fsm-iana-00

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rtc-hierarchical-rr/>
draft-ietf-idr-rtc-hierarchical-rr-04

 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-attribute-announcement/
> draft-ietf-idr-bgp-attribute-announcement-03

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-haas-idr-bgp-diffract/>
draft-haas-idr-bgp-diffract-00

 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-autoconf-considerations
/> draft-ietf-idr-bgp-autoconf-considerations-02

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-nh-cost/>
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-nh-cost-03

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd/>
draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-09

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rtc-no-rt/>
draft-ietf-idr-rtc-no-rt-12

 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-crit
eria/> draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-12

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ipv6-rt-constrain/>
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ipv6-rt-constrain-12

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-sla-exchange/>
draft-ietf-idr-sla-exchange-13

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-custom-decision/>
draft-ietf-idr-custom-decision-08

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-aspath-orf/>
draft-ietf-idr-aspath-orf-13

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-sla-exchange-impl/>
draft-ietf-idr-sla-exchange-impl-02

 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-reserved-extended-communiti
es/> draft-ietf-idr-reserved-extended-communities-09

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-enhanced-gr/>
draft-ietf-idr-enhanced-gr-06

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-guidelines/>
draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-guidelines-08

 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-impleme
ntation/> draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-implementation-00

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-mibv2/>
draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-mibv2-15

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-mibv2-tc-mib/>
draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-mibv2-tc-mib-05

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-enhanced-refresh-impl/>
draft-ietf-idr-enhanced-refresh-impl-00

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-multisession/>
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-multisession-07

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-issues/>
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-issues-06

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-best-external/>
draft-ietf-idr-best-external-05

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-mrai-dep/>
draft-ietf-idr-mrai-dep-04

 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rfc4760bis/>
draft-ietf-idr-rfc4760bis-03

 

Besides the distinctive technology application differences between these two
tracks, can the number above support the split of IDR WG, and further,
convergence of other light load WGs?

 

Aijun

 

From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:jhaas@pfrc.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2026 4:56 AM
To: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
Cc: Tiger Xu <xuxiaohu_ietf@hotmail.com>; Keyur Patel
<keyur=40arrcus.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; idr <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC on IDR Re-Charter (03/18/2026 - 04/01/2026)

 

Aijun (and others),

 

While the charter last call wasn't to setup conversation of "let's split the
group", that point had been discussed with the chairs and the AD previously.
The IDR chairs are not currently supportive of a split.  That said, it's
worth pushing the discussion more generally to see if we arrive at similar
conclusions.

 





On Mar 30, 2026, at 05:27, Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn
<mailto:wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn> > wrote:

 

Work within these two tracks is mutually independent and can be proceed in
parallel, which will defintely accelerate the processing of currently queued
drafts.

 

As a supporter of a split, it'd be useful for those thinking it is helpful
to discuss why they think a split would help the work.  Please be specific
as to what you think isn't working right now.

 

The idr-chairs github tracks the status of such things:

 

https://github.com/ietf-wg-idr/idr-chairs

 

Please also consider doing the exercise of picking documents you think
should be making better progress and reviewing the IETF mail archive to see
what traffic is happening on-list (WG work happens on the list) that is
moving the documents forwrd.

 

-- Jeff