Re: [Idr] BGP autodiscovery design team

Hi John, 

I'd like to volunteer as well. Thanks.

Best regards,
Jie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Scudder
> Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 3:33 AM
> To: idr wg <idr@ietf.org>
> Subject: [Idr] BGP autodiscovery design team
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> I realized this morning that although we announced in the last meeting that
> we’re forming this design team, we never announced it on the list. This is to
> correct that mistake. Here’s the text of the slide we presented at the meeting
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-idr-sessa-auto-
> discovery-design-team-chairs-00):
> 
> ---
> Autodiscovery
> 
> • Clear interest in WG to work on this topic.
> • No clear consensus on a specific approach.
> • Proposals (four of them) progressively closer semantically, seems likely
> convergence can happen.
> • But, important differences remain.
> 	• At least: transport (L2, L3), liveness, security, maybe multihop.
> • Chairs propose to charter a design team to close on a single proposal, by
> next meeting.
> 	• Might build on one of the existing drafts, might be a new draft, up to
> the design team.
> 	• Emphasis on pragmatism, OK to limit applicability (for example, to a
> single administrative domain).
> • Questions? Comments? Volunteers?
> —
> 
> We are in the process of forming the team and hope to announce it soon. We
> have many good volunteers already but if you didn’t know and do want to
> volunteer, please contact Sue and me.
> 
> Note that the design team will not make any binding decisions: as with all WG
> work, the WG has the final word, so any output of the DT will serve as input to
> the WG as a whole. (So even if you aren’t part of the DT, that doesn’t mean
> you won’t have a chance to be part of the process.)
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> —John
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr