IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: RTGWG feedback on APN next steps

Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com> Thu, 07 April 2022 16:35 UTC

Return-Path: <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.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 6AABD3A0EF9; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 09:35:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.905
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 QCM7NkBR18we; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 09:35:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EEF43A0F47; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 09:35:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml707-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.206]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4KZ6Nn2FMqz67tVr; Fri, 8 Apr 2022 00:32:25 +0800 (CST)
Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.33) by fraeml707-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 18:35:26 +0200
Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.33]) by fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.33]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.024; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 18:35:26 +0200
From: Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>
To: Jeff Tantsura <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
Thread-Topic: RTGWG feedback on APN next steps
Thread-Index: AQHYSRD2fzzxdFqUUE6jkUnHvUSjOazkSYwA
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 16:35:26 +0000
Message-ID: <184da99a734b418b988e9d2fc9afcefa@huawei.com>
References: <204D8DE6-F51C-4551-B1D7-1D69DBCA3626@hxcore.ol>
In-Reply-To: <204D8DE6-F51C-4551-B1D7-1D69DBCA3626@hxcore.ol>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.48.206.237]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_184da99a734b418b988e9d2fc9afcefahuaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/YMFCfRNRvRP49ZmkzC97fA5z_00>
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: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 16:35:35 -0000

Hi All,
I support the creation of a focus WG for APN. The APN scope has been properly clarified and bounded. The multiple discussions on APN have also showed enough interest from the IETF community to work on it.

Regards,

Giuseppe

From: rtgwg <rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura
Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2022 7:15 PM
To: RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>rg>; rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>rg>; 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<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

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email