RE: RTGWG feedback on APN next steps

Hi all,

Clearly there are important technical concerns wrt APN that need to be addressed, as expressed by Robert.  However, just as clearly there is a need for a forum beyond RTGWG where those discussions can take place and where new ways of solving valid technical problems can be explored.  There is also a critical mass of people who are apparently interested in working on this.  In light of this, formation of a working group makes sense to me and is something that I support.

--- Alex

From: rtgwg <rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Luis M. Contreras
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2022 6:37 AM
To: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: rtg-ads@ietf.org; rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>rg>; RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: RTGWG feedback on APN next steps

Hi all,

I see of interest the work on the APN concept, as expressed several times during BoFs and meetings. Moving the work to a dedicated WG seems to be a good and focused option. As mentioned by others in the list, terms and scope should be carefully defined for that purpose. So I support this way of moving forward.

Thanks

Luis

El mar, 5 abr 2022 a las 19:15, Jeff Tantsura (<jefftant.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>>) escribió:
Dear RTGWG,

APN has been presented at RTGWG multiple times, and we see the evolution of the
documents, including the scope of the problem and framework.  This topic needs
collaboration across WGs; we can foresee that not all issues to be addressed are
within the charter of RTGWG and would span beyond the Routing area.

RTGWG is chartered to provide a venue for new work, there are a couple of different options and one option for handling
such new work would be to recommend the development of a new WG.
The Chairs would then want to recommend that the ADs consider forming a focus WG, with a set of well defined deliverables and milestones (after delivery the group would be shut down) to work on a framework for APN.

We would like to solicit the WG for opinions.  Please note that comments about
existing APN documents should be sent to apn@ietf.org<mailto:apn@ietf.org>.  This thread focuses on
support or objection to recommending that the ADs consider the formation of a
new WG.

Please send your comments, support, or objectiond.
Thanks!

Cheers,
Yingzhen  Jeff

_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Frtgwg&data=04%7C01%7Calex%40futurewei.com%7Cd7c390b478174c21b66408da1bc06862%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637852810463817537%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=8Vx0upXLowt7ZnnhXQyjlAl85nJuc3LbyM6c4FS35mA%3D&reserved=0>

--
___________________________________________
Luis M. Contreras
contreras.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:contreras.ietf@gmail.com>
luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com<mailto:luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com>
Global CTIO unit / Telefonica