IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RTGWG feedback on APN next steps

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Tue, 05 April 2022 17:28 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 929583A0D7B; Tue, 5 Apr 2022 10:28:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.111
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.111 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
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 0YKT8oXn0vQX; Tue, 5 Apr 2022 10:28:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D97F03A0D79; Tue, 5 Apr 2022 10:28:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4KXvkc5Ddwz6G7rn; Tue, 5 Apr 2022 10:28:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1649179720; bh=TLlYsNwGaYKE6JJmwJgD5uQfm7142w8DQaYku1VkPzI=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=pZNQazasH+jO+uN9yQMr1eztubiN1FqqSebTMUN0Lw8pnetSCalNOWXGholoV7sBP gRo+eOO/M0rPTuVlJpZVuQen90yyShKKNPoS0q3Fb4vMNcA9KRHi7EvdsHdIXwJrND rjz21vRerTJv81JRNobOFfguObong0vhPSIvuyxI=
X-Quarantine-ID: <Z8lEIT98dr95>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.21.218] (50-233-136-230-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.233.136.230]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4KXvkc16ffz6G9JW; Tue, 5 Apr 2022 10:28:40 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <0fb49773-72d6-3b42-8c02-101910f84828@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 13:28:38 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: RTGWG feedback on APN next steps
Content-Language: en-US
To: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>, "rtg-ads@ietf.org" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>
References: <204D8DE6-F51C-4551-B1D7-1D69DBCA3626@hxcore.ol>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <204D8DE6-F51C-4551-B1D7-1D69DBCA3626@hxcore.ol>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/qSzypgTaJV-m5_cz_uL0QTfwFWk>
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: Tue, 05 Apr 2022 17:28:46 -0000

It is not clear to me that there is a well-defined problem or a 
willingness to embrace community process around the APN work.  (Feedback 
suggesting that there are existing approaches to be considered has 
consistently been met with repetitions of the same "new" proposals.)

That said, whether "a focus WG, with a set of well defined deliverables 
and milestones" would be a good idea or not depends in large part on 
what the terms are for the WG.  I can imagine cases which, while I might 
think them less than useful, would not be harmful and might be helpful. 
  I can equally imagine terms from the same premise that would be 
unacceptable.

Yours,
Joel

On 4/5/2022 1:14 PM, Jeff Tantsura 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 
> <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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> rtgwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email