Re: RTGWG feedback on APN next steps

Hi,

I support the creation of an APN focused working group. The problem statement, requirements and framework have been properly documented and there’s a good consensus in the industry that this topic needs to be worked out. A dedicated WG seems, to me, as the best approach.

Thanks.
s.

> On Apr 5, 2022, at 7:14 PM, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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