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

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

> On Jan 25, 2018, at 2:36 PM, Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On January 25, 2018 at 4:15:22 PM, Fred Baker ([e-mail]) wrote:
> 
> Fred:
> 
> Hi!
> 
>> Likewise, the charter seems reasonable. The one question I had reading it was that it seems to contain protocol details that might need to be changed in the process of working group discussion, and so should perhaps be left to the documents. I'd suggest text such as "protocol details will be as described in" whatever the right document is, "consistent with" the right RFC.
> 
> Can you please provide specifics on which details you’re referring to?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Alvaro.

I'm working from Gunter's initial email, which opens with

> The Link-State Vector Routing (LSVR) Working Group is chartered to develop and document a hybrid routing protocol utilizing a combination of link-state and path-vector routing mechanisms.  The LSVR WG will utilize existing the IPv4/IPv6 transport, packet formats, and error handling from BGP-4 (RFC4271). Additionally, the BGP-LS NLRI encoding mechanisms defined in RFC7752 are utilized to facilitate Link-State Vector (LSV) routing information distribution. An LSV is intended to be specified as a data structure comprised of a link identification, link attributes, neighbor information, cost toward neighbors, and other attributes that are defined for control plane function and policy-based routing decisions.

I'm sure that's all true. However, I might suggest the last sentence, the specifics of an LSV, not be a *charter* (and therefore controlling) issue. I wouldn't want to get 80% down the way and realize we also need something else in the LSV, and have to recharter to get it there.