IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RTGWG feedback on APN next steps

"liupengyjy@chinamobile.com" <liupengyjy@chinamobile.com> Wed, 06 April 2022 14:24 UTC

Return-Path: <liupengyjy@chinamobile.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEB183A0D78; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 07:24:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z3NMyUuFGL_g; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 07:24:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmccmta3.chinamobile.com (cmccmta3.chinamobile.com [221.176.66.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F9603A0687; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 07:24:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-RM-TagInfo: emlType=0
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from spf.mail.chinamobile.com (unknown[172.16.121.81]) by rmmx-syy-dmz-app09-12009 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee9624da2a0bc5-24b34; Wed, 06 Apr 2022 22:24:35 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee9624da2a0bc5-24b34
X-RM-TagInfo: emlType=0
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from CMCC-LP (unknown[222.131.3.129]) by rmsmtp-syy-appsvrnew01-12030 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2efe624da2a112d-96d59; Wed, 06 Apr 2022 22:24:34 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2efe624da2a112d-96d59
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 22:28:39 +0800
From: "liupengyjy@chinamobile.com" <liupengyjy@chinamobile.com>
To: jefftant.ietf <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, rtgwg <rtgwg@ietf.org>, rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>, "rtg-ads@ietf.org" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: RTGWG feedback on APN next steps
References: <204D8DE6-F51C-4551-B1D7-1D69DBCA3626@hxcore.ol>
X-Priority: 3
X-GUID: F1584AF4-8AA6-46E7-BCC0-00B3D9AA3680
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.2.21.453[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2022040622283832384752@chinamobile.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart630871603761_=----"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/1yXzvrVxpqUicGDuMW-Jd6aJmQE>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2022 14:24:43 -0000

Hi WG，

I have been interested in the APN work and It has made the remarkable progress such as problem statement, scope and the analysis work due to the extensive contribution.

So I support the formation of a new WG of APN, which could really help to handle the work such as framework. 

Regards,
Peng


liupengyjy@chinamobile.com
 
From: Jeff Tantsura
Date: 2022-04-06 01:14
To: RTGWG; rtgwg-chairs; rtg-ads@ietf.org
Subject: RTGWG feedback on APN next steps
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.  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

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email