IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rrg] Consensus on inter/intra-domain routing separation

"George, Wes E [NTK]" <Wesley.E.George@sprint.com> Wed, 29 September 2010 21:37 UTC

Return-Path: <Wesley.E.George@sprint.com>
X-Original-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6D413A6DAD for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 14:37:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.641
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.641 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.358, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vTF9lRIrsUzG for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 14:37:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from VA3EHSOBE009.bigfish.com (va3ehsobe006.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.180.16]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 402233A6C53 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 14:37:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail138-va3-R.bigfish.com (10.7.14.248) by VA3EHSOBE009.bigfish.com (10.7.40.29) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.340.0; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 21:38:14 +0000
Received: from mail138-va3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail138-va3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09FC31702E8; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 21:38:14 +0000 (UTC)
X-SpamScore: -43
X-BigFish: VS-43(zz542N1418M4015L9371Pzz1202hzz8275dh1033ILz2fh87h2a8h61h)
X-Spam-TCS-SCL: 0:0
X-FB-DOMAIN-IP-MATCH: fail
Received: from mail138-va3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail138-va3 (MessageSwitch) id 1285796293607611_14257; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 21:38:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from VA3EHSMHS029.bigfish.com (unknown [10.7.14.252]) by mail138-va3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87708B7004B; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 21:38:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdaasdm1.corp.sprint.com (144.229.32.56) by VA3EHSMHS029.bigfish.com (10.7.99.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.0.482.44; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 21:38:12 +0000
Received: from plswh04a.ad.sprint.com (plswh04a.corp.sprint.com [144.226.251.24]) by pdaasdm1.corp.sprint.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.0.5/Sentrion-MTA-4.0.5) with ESMTP id o8TLRX6U017742 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:27:33 -0500
Received: from PLSWM01C.ad.sprint.com ([144.226.242.77]) by plswh04a.ad.sprint.com ([2002:90e2:fb18::90e2:fb18]) with mapi; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:38:11 -0500
From: "George, Wes E [NTK]" <Wesley.E.George@sprint.com>
To: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>, IRTF RRG <rrg@irtf.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:38:09 -0500
Thread-Topic: [rrg] Consensus on inter/intra-domain routing separation
Thread-Index: Actf7QQ/5r2saZ5BT5yqcbZ9vaxeCwAMH+Qw
Message-ID: <F7EB0A7C707E39409A73CD0353242551A8C1D9EA7D@PLSWM01C.ad.sprint.com>
References: <201009211252.29713.irtf@tonistoev.info> <201009291602.06475.irtf@tonistoev.info> <4CA33BFE.8000006@joelhalpern.com> <201009291732.04082.irtf@tonistoev.info> <EB607363-59AD-417F-98E6-7E99620F1BB4@tony.li>
In-Reply-To: <EB607363-59AD-417F-98E6-7E99620F1BB4@tony.li>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Reverse-DNS: smtpda1.sprint.com
Subject: Re: [rrg] Consensus on inter/intra-domain routing separation
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 21:37:34 -0000

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-narten-radir-problem-statement/
I can't remember if it was on this list or V6Ops, but does it make a difference that this is an individual contribution that is expired? Should we perhaps do the same consensus check and push to full RFC status as we have been doing with the individual proposals?
Given the fact that it's fairly central to the discussion, I think that there's some value in this, assuming the author is willing to shepherd it.

Thanks,
Wes

-----Original Message-----
From: rrg-bounces@irtf.org [mailto:rrg-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of Tony Li
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 11:43 AM
To: IRTF RRG
Subject: Re: [rrg] Consensus on inter/intra-domain routing separation



Folks,

According to my DRAM, the topics now in front of the RG are:

- Comments on the recommendation, currently in IRSG review
- Comments on the design goals document, which we should Last Call soon
- Comments on ILNP, soon to be in IRSG review
- Comments on IRON, currently in IRSG review
- Discussion of future RG topics

We can tolerate a certain amount of additional discussion, depending on its level of constructiveness.   Non-constructive commentary is, of course, discouraged.

Regards,
Tony

_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg


This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email