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>)
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.  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
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>

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