RE: RTGWG feedback on APN next steps

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jeff and Yingzhen,

 

I would certainly appreciate a place that is working on a framework and the requirements that underlie the drive for APN.

 

I think that APN fits within the broad scope of “semantic routing” that I described at the meeting during IETF 113 and I would like us to be certain that the range of problems being addressed by APN has been fully discussed so that we avoid producing a niche solution for a subset of the use cases that might be addressed if we considered more carefully.

 

Robert is right that there are some risks associated with the potential complexity added to the routing and forwarding system (I hope I captured the essence of that in my presentation and in draft-king-irtf-challenges-in-routing), and I feel that working through these in a focused venue as part of the discussion of the framework would help target the solutions work better.

 

A small “however” here…

However, before fully supporting the creation of a working group, I do like to see the charter and scope. Obviously, that is beyond the current question that you asked (and that’s fine), but I just want the ADs to know the qualification to my answer.

 

Cheers,

Adrian

 

From: rtgwg <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura
Sent: 05 April 2022 18:15
To: RTGWG <[e-mail]>rg>; rtgwg-chairs <[e-mail]>rg>; [e-mail]
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 [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> .  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