IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> Tue, 30 January 2018 18:21 UTC

Return-Path: <tony.li@tony.li>
X-Original-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 369EC12EA53 for <lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 10:21:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 zKBqrsDLtj_H for <lsvr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 10:21:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resqmta-po-04v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-po-04v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe16:19:96:114:154:163]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 708511200C1 for <lsvr@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 10:21:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resomta-po-19v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.243]) by resqmta-po-04v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTP id gaX5eFrL475iOgaXAepDip; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 18:21:28 +0000
Received: from [172.22.228.216] ([162.210.130.3]) by resomta-po-19v.sys.comcast.net with SMTP id gaUzeqZh6ysvigaV1e7Ztp; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 18:19:26 +0000
From: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
Message-Id: <E1819EA5-74FF-46FE-A78B-D6113F12D98A@tony.li>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7D445966-4A8C-419A-815E-9896DB193E6B"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 10:19:12 -0800
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESsz+enYiC1ABrNyBN3yD5U7KwdxoTsiVSTNoSjF_wtYqWA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com>, Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>, "lsvr@ietf.org" <lsvr@ietf.org>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <CAEFuwkhz0ze84wmSD82hWNogJA8rxVgV7NLedqeP2gDa1Gi0Pw@mail.gmail.com> <5A61AA43-8C1F-48AB-A984-817FBE1A0419@gmail.com> <CAPH1YdiGy12Tec2EQ+gd2GziSEduEv80b_VvArSB8JVWX33tug@mail.gmail.com> <89774842-3726-4F74-85B0-FD4F2DFBE46B@gmail.com> <CAMMESsyoan30qWU8yEUSaTGO2g2SrmcEg_WJnxB8iQS7tbZxWA@mail.gmail.com> <84A84AF6-35B5-477C-AD36-24006A72728F@gmail.com> <AM5PR0701MB283602FF30A33F8E428628E9E0E00@AM5PR0701MB2836.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <72E12154-C3A6-4BBB-BEFC-CE0B95B580A1@tony.li> <CAMMESsz+enYiC1ABrNyBN3yD5U7KwdxoTsiVSTNoSjF_wtYqWA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfDiuf+NeIBLHhyNG7Vn7GCr0bP5FfNks0oDSZ4apre5ca3VpVFpOi8Vv1fJZDtqRzYxTvJkHKE6hHlQpK77uuALsiNCNCBKB5HHwCchxbeCzCV6n9LBg 4npy1tT9nqEnun5AQSW2QpjLvfKgMN3vAGNYe+qc9pzCqqRDYn8tx5YAgP/SSkapV/TDkrR9VHPA8wn9oNvFNE/ZqmUsHFqVUHecBj2PHHsjufOHz3bhVtVc JyCao5hhWXUsmKK/NL9wTSAyzBYhf/lmX2i4fXDzJig=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsvr/Z3wJS9FhO8IyPc6juBHxNmKc4o4>
Subject: Re: [Lsvr] Kicking off the LSVR (Link State Vector Routing) charter discussion
X-BeenThere: lsvr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Vector Routing <lsvr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsvr>, <mailto:lsvr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsvr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsvr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsvr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsvr>, <mailto:lsvr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 18:21:30 -0000


> 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.
> 

Fair enough.  We await your wisdom. 

Tony

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email