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

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 6:15 PM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:

> Well to the best of my understanding each AFI/SAFI as defined today
> carries different address class.
>
> With spf bgp we have a bit of a conflict as safi 1/1 or 2/1 may carry the
> exact same prefix as new fancy bgp spf.
>
> Clearly the authors of the latter need to differentiate how new SAFI is
> going to interwork with existing eBGP in any hypothetical deployment.
>
> - - -
>
> Completely agreed on "rationale" part as far as forming WG. I was more
> commenting on misleading community by setting up non wg forming bof just to
> see it has suddenly resulted in forming two working groups.
>

To clarify, the IESG has been having more non-wg forming BoFs which doesn't
actually judge whether a WG will form.  At a WG forming BoF, the
conversation is frequently around the charter and whether it has captured
the work items and scope appropriately.  At a non-WG forming BoF,
conversation is more around the technical problem and possible solutions.
I don't recall off-hand whether bier or babel had WG-forming BoFs.

This is all part of trying to get new work moving along more quickly (see
IETF relevance).

Regards,
Alia

> I am wishing them all the best !
>
> R.
>
>
>
> On Jan 19, 2018 00:02, "Tony Li" <tony.li@tony.li> wrote:
>
>
>
> Robert,
>
> There are some questions on how bgp spf would select routes when executed
> concurrently with "standard" bgp.
>
> The answer by some is to run it in parallel and just call it bgp as
> otherwise it will not sell ;)
>
>
>
> And I believe that’s why there’s already an AFI/SAFI mechanism
> incorporated: to de-multiplex information with alternate semantics.
> Therefore, we do not need another mechanism.
>
>
> Outside of all of this Alia and Alvaro are setting working groups for both
> rift and bgp-spf based on their own judgements.
>
> In Singapore we had a non wg forming bof on dc routing. How did that
> result in creation of two new wg is unknown.
>
> Is this how now IETF working groups get formed ? Behind the scene and
> without even single document spelling out what is wrong with current
> protocols ?
>
>
>
> The creation of WGs has always been at the discretion of the Area
> Directors.  Please see RFC 2418.  This RFC does NOT use the word
> ‘rationale’.
>
> Tony
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lsvr mailing list
> Lsvr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsvr
>
>