Re: [nemo] New versions of charter

[marcelo bagnulo braun <[e-mail]>]

Hi T.J.

I think that the charter is still missing the identification of actual 
application scenarios that require RO (in particular globally 
distributed HAs) and the requirements that these use cases have.

I think that during the charter discussion so far, the only use case we 
have for RO is the aviation case, which they have these globally moving 
network scenarios, and they have a very clear idea of what the 
requirements are for this case.

I think that it is not straight forward from these preliminary list of 
requirements that they need globally distributed HAs, nor a protocol to 
coordinate them. (It is neither clear they they do not need different 
ISPs for instance, making global HAHA type of solution and contributor 
to the global routing table)

So, as i see it:

- it is clear that the aviation is a relevant use case for RO in 
globally moving networks
- imho we should work to provide a solution for this particular use case
- however, it is not clear what the solution should be (yet)

So, i would suggest to include the following items in the charter:

- Submit a -00 draft describing the requirements for globally moving 
networks
- Submit a -00 draft describing a solution for globally moving networks 
that fulfills the identified requirements
- Remove Submit -00 draft on Route Optimization for geographically 
distributed HAs

bottom line is that Submit -00 draft on Route Optimization for 
geographically distributed HAs is assumning a solution while we still 
haven't a concise requirements list for the problem, which makes it 
hard to evaluate if the proposed solution fits the problem and how this 
solution will be used and the effects that the deployment of such 
solution will have (in particular in the global routing table)

regards, marcelo


El 15/05/2006, a las 21:00, T.J.Kniveton escribió:

> I have posted a new version of the proposed charter (on the web page) 
> to replace the April 30 version. Some of the changes include:
>
> - Added some text about v6, v4 and v4/v6 solution distinctions.
> - Added some additional text throughout the tasks/nontasks
> - Added editing and typo fixes as suggested
> - Other suggested changes
>
> One remaining comment which I have not addressed yet:
>
> James Kempf wrote:
>> I am very much in favor of making WG charters very specific. It helps 
>> to avoid ambiguity about what the WG is intending to accomplish, and 
>> also helps focus the energy of the WG and avoid having it become 
>> distracted by other proposals that tend to pop up, until the 
>> originally promised work is completed. Therefore, I would recommend 
>> that the charter include a bulleted list with three items 
>> corresponding to each of these new drafts, with each item giving a 
>> concise but complete description of what the promised draft is 
>> intended to accomplish. If there are existing individual drafts that 
>> cover these, the descriptions can be based on the individual drafts. 
>> Also, it might be helpful to be more specific about the goals and 
>> their timing. Rather than just a single goal, have a list that 
>> correspond to the process: 00 WG draft selected by this time, WG last 
>> call by this time, submission to IESG by this time.
>
> (Some help would be appreciated with this one). I think we still have 
> to adjust the milestones a bit more to make sure everything is 
> explicitly spelled out. I have tried to make the charter as concrete 
> as possible, while still short enough to be manageable/readable. I 
> would like the next revision to focus on the milestones.
>
> Can people please read this over and make comments/suggestions, with 
> proposed text changes? That would be helpful.
>
> Thanks,
> TJ
>
>