Re: [Idr] BGP autodiscovery design team

Publicly echoing my private responses, I'm willing to be on the design team.

-- Jeff

> On Dec 4, 2019, at 2:33 PM, John Scudder <jgs=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> 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