RE: [Rift] kicking off the charter discussion

[<[e-mail]>]

> 	The Routing in Fat Trees (RIFT) protocol addresses the demands of
> routing in Clos and Fat-Tree networks via a mixture of both link-state and

I would tend to say "spine and leaf" here, rather than Clod -- Clos is one instance of a spine and leaf, but there are others.
 
> 	- minimize the amount of routing state held at each topology level,

It is probably useful to indicate both topology and reachability state here, as they are two different things.

> 	- allow traffic steering and re-routing policies,

This might be a little underspecified ... I think this should probably include "using metrics and policy carried within the RIFT control plane." You can always hijack a path using PCEP or something else, so the requirement, as stated, just feels a little "weak."

> 	It is important that nodes participating in the protocol should need only
> very light configuration and should be able to join a network as leaf nodes
> simply by connecting to the network using default configuration.

"very light" might be better as "minimal?" It would be nice to have something with a more definite meaning here, but I’m not certain what.

> 	The protocol must support IPv6 and should also support IPv4.

In terms of carrying reachability for, or in terms of running on top of? Two different things.

😊 /r