Agenda topics for IETF-74

["John G. Scudder" <[e-mail]>]

Folks,

rtgwg will meet at IETF-74 on Monday March 23 from 1520 - 1720.  If  
you'd like an agenda slot, please send  email to the chairs.  Please  
also let us know how much time you think  you'll need.

Thanks,

--John, Alia and Alex

From [e-mail]  Thu Mar  5 05:00:01 2009
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
X-Original-To: [e-mail]
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 573813A6AB8; Thu,  5 Mar 2009 05:00:01 -0800 (PST)
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-rtgwg-lf-conv-frmwk-04.txt 
Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu,  5 Mar 2009 05:00:01 -0800 (PST)
Cc: [e-mail]
X-BeenThere: [e-mail]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtgwg>
List-Post: <mailto:[e-mail]>
List-Help: <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 13:00:01 -0000

--NextPart

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Routing Area Working Group Working Group of the IETF.


	Title           : A Framework for Loop-free Convergence
	Author(s)       : M. Shand, S. Bryant
	Filename        : draft-ietf-rtgwg-lf-conv-frmwk-04.txt
	Pages           : 22
	Date            : 2009-03-05

This draft describes mechanisms that may be used to prevent or to
suppress the formation of micro-loops when an IP or MPLS network
undergoes topology change due to failure, repair or management
action.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rtgwg-lf-conv-frmwk-04.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

--NextPart
Content-Type: Message/External-body;
	name="draft-ietf-rtgwg-lf-conv-frmwk-04.txt";
	site="ftp.ietf.org";
	access-type="anon-ftp";
	directory="internet-drafts"

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID: <[e-mail]>


--NextPart--

From [e-mail]  Mon Mar 16 13:10:58 2009
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
X-Original-To: [e-mail]
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B0533A6B1C; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:10:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4+630anInu8h; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:10:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gx0-f165.google.com (mail-gx0-f165.google.com [209.85.217.165]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C59C3A684E; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:10:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gxk9 with SMTP id 9so2179356gxk.13 for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:11:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=O1a18HrTsd7l+bPgyv9YT5rHCOP0pzQUQv/5cIBwbQY=; b=F5GctCoZsA1luOTyj0VgPHufMdra+tuKyL0s3zFeZJMbY127jLPKp0DyJsJ2n4ZUa+ 3oOyhsaudNT5+81pVeXtFQ4zv/alXvsiL8DFeQJKfrFvbeTJ0j0kjaKatL5xq5wHTdCI GcGsAQEPhSc4OjgRUNHKYVV6e/F5tiz0gmyx0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=TARE6hEuQqDIvXXgkpyq4a2dgX2fqfJS66igyNAjS4kM5cBYzU+7ydCwHgiZK57ALn rlS1EHugpmAO7B1l2BGvZE/i81ch7GFER1QaICLhl6rjCBI0hwxIMGTxHBxROIK1GIpB D/bbcVoqUiOZrIRHwzZmMO2C+D9GtbryxTyXI=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.16.74 with SMTP id n10mr1120752iba.23.1237234298949; Mon,  16 Mar 2009 13:11:38 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:11:38 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pls review draft-lebovitz-kmart-roadmap-01.txt
From: Gregory Lebovitz <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000325574d7ae491c50465420e7a
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 01:16:38 -0700
Cc: Ross Callon <[e-mail]>, Tim Polk <[e-mail]>, Pasi Eronen <[e-mail]>, Danny McPherson <[e-mail]>
X-BeenThere: [e-mail]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtgwg>
List-Post: <mailto:[e-mail]>
List-Help: <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:10:58 -0000

--000325574d7ae491c50465420e7a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hey all,

The -01 draft that captures the goals, definition of work, and order of
priorities for securing routing protocol transports is here:
   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lebovitz-kmart-roadmap-01.txt

This represents joint work of the IAB, RTG and SAAG areas, under the
guidance of the ADs of both.

This document will be presented in IETF74 at:
 - RTG WG
 - SAAG
 - SIDR (brief advertisement)
 - Others ? (pls let me know)

Pls respond with comments to me, and cc the [e-mail] mail list.

Gregory.

-- 
----
IETF related email from
Gregory M. Lebovitz
Juniper Networks

--000325574d7ae491c50465420e7a
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div>Hey all,</div>
<div>=A0</div>
<div>The -01 draft that captures the goals, definition of work, and order o=
f priorities for securing routing protocol transports is here:</div>
<div>=A0=A0 <a href=3D"http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lebovitz-k=
mart-roadmap-01.txt">http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lebovitz-kma=
rt-roadmap-01.txt</a> </div>
<div>=A0</div>
<div>This represents joint work of the IAB, RTG and SAAG areas, under the g=
uidance of the ADs of both.</div>
<div>=A0</div>
<div>This document will be presented in IETF74=A0at:</div>
<div>=A0- RTG WG</div>
<div>=A0- SAAG</div>
<div>=A0- SIDR (brief advertisement)</div>
<div>=A0- Others ? (pls let me know)</div>
<div>=A0</div>
<div>Pls respond with comments to me, and cc the <a href=3D"mailto:kmart@ie=
tf.org">[e-mail]</a> mail list.</div>
<div>=A0</div>
<div>Gregory.<br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br>----<br>IETF related email from<b=
r>Gregory M. Lebovitz<br>Juniper Networks<br></div>

--000325574d7ae491c50465420e7a--

From [e-mail]  Mon Mar 23 16:25:51 2009
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
X-Original-To: [e-mail]
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94FB63A6C52 for <[e-mail]>; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:25:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.709
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.709 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.556,  BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wHBbm8Qa-gWm for <[e-mail]>; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:25:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound-mail-148.bluehost.com (outbound-mail-148.bluehost.com [67.222.38.38]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 70E5F3A6C48 for <[e-mail]>; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:25:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 6475 invoked by uid 0); 23 Mar 2009 23:23:20 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box474.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.74) by outboundproxy5.bluehost.com with SMTP; 23 Mar 2009 23:23:20 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=labn.net; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Identified-User; b=PNmZme1cnaK4MdhlcMjkk/kOe5I7Fplu2PhC3ykcvU4f1VlpCUMzSYXgwpfM0uuAZaCisqnO10GcdWlBEObLhoEXy9zb9vSqxwt5WLcSd/sMewJBqPWHOQ5vV/zXK3eT;
Received: from box474.bluehost.com ([74.220.219.74] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box474.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <[e-mail]>) id 1LltXU-00083u-Vf for [e-mail]; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:26:41 -0600
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:26:56 -0700
From: Lou Berger <[e-mail]>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20090108 Eudora/3.0b1pre
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: [e-mail]
Subject: comment on draft-so-yong-mpls-ctg-framework-requirement-01
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {2629:box474.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 74.220.219.74 authed with [e-mail]}
X-BeenThere: [e-mail]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtgwg>
List-Post: <mailto:[e-mail]>
List-Help: <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 23:25:51 -0000

Per Alex's request:

My point was that it would be useful to have a requirements document that:
1) identified the issues with today's solutions
2) identified operational requirements for an alternate solution

The document has a good start (or however Dave phrased id) of 1 in 
section 3.

The document has a start on 2,  but does so only in the context of a 
particular solution/approach, i.e., "Composite Transport Group 
Requirements".  For example the document states:
    Composite
    Transport Group (CTG) provides the local traffic engineering
    management/transport over multiple parallel links that solves this
    problem in MPLS networks.  ....
and
    Composite Transport Group (CTG) is the TE method to transport
    aggregated traffic over a composite link. ....

I think it would be really useful to identify the carrier requirements 
independent of the CTG solution.  For example the document could state:
- the solution must support multiple component links with different
   administrative costs
- the solution must support multiple routing instances per router
- the solution must support RSVP-TE LSPs
- the solution must support LDP LSPs
....

Once there is a clear understanding of requirements we can judge if the 
proposed solution is the one that the community wants to progress (or if 
there are alternatives.)

Hope this clarifies the point.

Lou