Re: [Lsvr] Kicking off the LSVR (Link State Vector Routing) charter discussion

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

On January 26, 2018 at 10:44:48 AM, Tony Li ([e-mail]) wrote:

Tony:

Hi!

There’s good reason to think that a pure path vector IGP is also possible
and might well be preferable to an LSVR. Do we want to broaden the charter
to consider that part of the solution space?

Right now, the charter is about a solution, not about a problem. In
bounding the solution, we may steer ourselves away from alternate,
preferable solutions.

Routing in a DC is too broad — so instead we chose to focus on specific
solutions (the proposals behind lsvr and rift), which is why the charters
are the way they are (focused on solutions and not problems).  Also, while
I think there is interest in the solutions, the real proof will come from
active participation in the WGs.  This brings me to think that focusing the
work should result in measurable progress, in the short term.  The intent
is then to charter work that can reasonably be completed in about 12-18
months.  After that, we can think about making the scope of the WG broader.

I do agree with you in that we could be steering ourselves away from other
solutions — but at the same time a broader initial charter could result in
scope creep and lack of focus.

Having said that — I will be starting the Internal Review of the charter
this week with the goal of having a WG up and running before we get to
London.

Thanks!

Alvaro.