Re: [Idr] Draft IDR charter text

This looks great so far

On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 18:44 John Scudder <jgs=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Here’s a draft of new charter text we came up with after consulting with
> the Routing ADs [*]:
>
> —
> The Inter-Domain Routing Working Group is chartered to standardize,
> develop, and support the Border Gateway Protocol Version 4 (BGP-4)  [RFC
> 4271] capable of supporting policy based routing for TCP/IP Internets.
>
> The main objective of the working group is to support the use of BGP-4 by
> IP version 4 and IP version 6 networks. The working group will continue to
> work on improving the robustness, scalability, deployability,
> manageability, and security of BGP.
>
> BGP is an enabling protocol or subject of interest for a number of other
> working groups, including BESS, LSVR, LSR, SIDROPS, and GROW. Those (and
> other) groups may develop standards that make use of BGP. IDR asks that
> when another working group proposes changes and additions to BGP, that IDR
> should be informed. In particular, if another working group requests
> allocation of a code point from a BGP protocol registry, IDR should be
> consulted as soon as possible. The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters
> group is the most notable example of such registries. In general, protocol
> changes should be progressed through IDR, whereas uses of extensible
> mechanisms need only notification to IDR.
>
> IDR desires to review extensions made to BGP in other working groups at
> least at WG document adoption and during working group last calls. The IDR
> working group will also provide advice and guidance on BGP to other working
> groups as requested.
>
> IDR welcomes advice and requirements from other working groups,
> particularly from GROW which is chartered for this purpose.
> —
>
> The main changes vs. the prior text are,
>
> 1. Talks in more detail about what we expect from our peer WGs and what
> they can expect from us.
> 2. Removes the “work items” section. This was largely redundant with the
> milestones and it just muddies the waters.
>
> Essentially the intent is to say “we do BGP” but a little more rigorously
> (or at least verbosely). :-)
>
> If we adopt this charter, or one like it, the next step would be to do a
> pass of updating our milestones, fairly extensively. Many of the
> suggestions that have been made so far (thank you!) would fall into that
> discussion.
>
> Regards,
>
> —John
>
> [*] Does not imply the Routing ADs have approved this text, they have not
> provided an opinion on it.
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>