[Idr] IDR WG Charter (Re: Adoption call for draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext [5/2 - 5/16/2018])

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 05 June 2019 12:43 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2039112006E; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 05:43:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.996
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.996 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k-knL3UYonxD; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 05:43:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x536.google.com (mail-ed1-x536.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::536]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69D44120096; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 05:43:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x536.google.com with SMTP id g13so5610409edu.5; Wed, 05 Jun 2019 05:43:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=k2q+zP7AA/FTkcTR4ZiAJAFEUqy+jTcVj6D+DmqqfD0=; b=I4jT4jmcqfLTtUAFe/vvHZzUwzrIFa2rZz5Fs6OQ0FdcDwlqnpgeNas170eknug6bW 8cm5hhEx1sJVxbvzrvvnQCcwemsiT7qK9M/28FrQzggo2TG0uycNDAwXOPjJcslP0di7 lV8LJiCddjKzKWTmDyfD+4bCRiR6uEl7J+ZlI7n99p32E1jfbL1jCrqq01KA2tXvsWbZ t26J8//D65rS/Jpj6HQY9iUZ9xlfaShC7iz4Z2fsUVBucg2lv2tfTubQnIMnXRl543Jp jR9oIw89VprFjtWIkUB2tG3pAxJKbcr1GFhNdxZXeAPlmUdU64rHse4nXa5M1YjujGAQ UxmA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=k2q+zP7AA/FTkcTR4ZiAJAFEUqy+jTcVj6D+DmqqfD0=; b=uIJyc+AJG+HRch0qehT0xw4KyjrIwkLUTLR4bW03YGU0rCJOQNWGu1xTKgBg3wvYPP CMRq8UrNrSS1EBfi7JepnCkvmHC/P79GIJPF6a45231swqY0rshyGsymFRRWqIc/vzlb PfvFrYFZXkhXrLXLH/wPMGhOdOD5mFnq/Xi97Yu7AnXfs3JqlbwQEYQyXdCNFjQme7Oo +/xTWh/U2FM4QCnd+Qofz+KJuUFOTS4qGgM10zvGP2bZeETQillfyRXm8zghwHy+WrKw wguaz7+uGJ1gEqgcrCS0L9E38Eb2paJnMN/SBSy1zMkNQ8xaKMqQgti495acn3y8Ae0E pTAQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV0Q+Mp63KyWX+uqSHO83mIOrw6jasgwwLIRoGXFxo1P7zkimbR NDxEI3laGTZrERwwMN3+RYwkgT8+wBzwltMmOOC7JQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyGQ/cP0kNMA3rSMg63YNXvpEhtv5ZNHPRRiRp4TdjjEFZn2HllE95b9csfu2mFMZf9/jF7p8SzoEQ5tTbGENA=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:d144:: with SMTP id r4mr43107785edo.87.1559738615899; Wed, 05 Jun 2019 05:43:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 05:43:35 -0700
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMHV0G_O9p7F0UPHXUtzz6HWSiVa5EsLosZu3Q7U_Gr32A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <01ce01d5167f$d263a120$772ae360$@ndzh.com> <DM5PR11MB202720F61953C224DB081498C1140@DM5PR11MB2027.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <02cf01d51ab1$052bfc80$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <004201d51abd$498a5000$dc9ef000$@ndzh.com> <CAOj+MMEnyT1sOX9fWbDR4PV4goBZerdF6ykKUbZ2t3YDRyAHfg@mail.gmail.com> <005301d51ac3$4b6e6a90$e24b3fb0$@ndzh.com> <CAOj+MMHV0G_O9p7F0UPHXUtzz6HWSiVa5EsLosZu3Q7U_Gr32A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 05:43:35 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMMESsyKX3KwbgFVb6v2jzWixn6nJLrBZezdQMpxNH4ExvzTYQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>, rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>, "<rtg-ads@ietf.org>" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000024abaf058a92f221"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Nq3hsJ_GEE0b0avB3QMP0IL9io0>
Subject: [Idr] IDR WG Charter (Re: Adoption call for draft-dawra-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext [5/2 - 5/16/2018])
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 12:43:40 -0000

On June 4, 2019 at 9:46:23 AM, Robert Raszuk (robert@raszuk.net) wrote:

[Changed the subject.  Explicitly added rtgwg-chairs/rtg-ads: take a look
at the last part of this message.]

Robert:

Hi!

As to the 99% of BGP-LS,  that’s a question the chairs and ADs tried to ask
the WG in 2018.   The WG did not engage on that discussion.

I reread the IDR charter ,,, https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/idr/about/

I did not find anything there which would justify any of the work related
to BGP-LS needs in this WG for example - topology or link state information
transport.

According to the datatracker, the last revision of the Charter was in
2010.  It still includes items such as MIBs and four-octet ASNs... I think
it is time for an update!  This is a conversation that I’ve already had
with the Chairs and they have the AI to kick off that discussion.  Among
other things, more clarity is needed on the overall responsibility around
BGP.

To your point about BGP-LS; I think that a liberal interpretation of the
Charter and the general understanding that this WG is responsible for BGP
allows that work.  It would have been ideal if the question had come at the
time when the work was started….

It would also be ideal if the Charter (all charters) always reflected what
a WG is working on…but sometimes the process of updating can get in the way
of getting work done.


[Bringing in your other point.]

On June 4, 2019 at 6:30:26 AM, Robert Raszuk (robert@raszuk.net) wrote:

Even charter aside IMO by shifting IDR focus and processing 99% of BGP-LS
related documents we are doing huge disservice to Internet and routing
related needs without even bringing the aspect of protocol pollution.

...

IMO AD should recognize the need for various non routing information
transport and steer this towards BOF and new WG creation to define new
protocol for it.. Even if rather from scratch such effort would reuse some
of the BGP features. And while it was not done up front it is not too late
now.

I have also had the conversation with the Chairs about the load that BGP-LS
represents to idr and the general topic of information transport (note that
BGP is not the only protocol in the Routing Area being used to transport
stuff…so it is a much wider topic).  The last time was a few months ago.  I
don’t remember having the discussion on the list.

At that time, the general consensus (between the Chairs and me) was that
the operation of BGP-LS should be maintained in idr (it is BGP!).  I don’t
remember any objection about having a discussion about the wider topic.  A
non-WG forming BOF seems like the right place to do that.

I would be happy to sponsor that discussion at IETF 105.  See more below...


I think there are a couple of actions that should come out of this thread:

(1) idr Charter Update.  I’ll rely on the Chairs to move this topic
forward.  Even though the time is short, it would be ideal to have a
focused discussion in Montreal.

(2) Non-Routing Information Transport (nRIT).  This is clearly a
non-idr-specific topic. If you (and/or someone else) wants to propose a BOF
for Montreal, I will sponsor it — note that the deadline for BOF proposals
is this Friday [1].  Realizing that a BOF proposal might be too rushed, we
could also talk about this in rtgwg (their Charter clearly talks about
being a "venue to discuss, evaluate, support and develop proposals for new
work in the Routing Area”).  If we want to have a fruitful discussion (and
not just statements in one direction or another), then I expect to start
working on this right away.

Thanks!

Alvaro.


[1] https://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/