IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: RTGWG feedback on APN next steps

鱼亚锋 <yuyafeng.zh@ccb.com> Thu, 07 April 2022 09:15 UTC

Return-Path: <yuyafeng.zh@ccb.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 8357F3A15BE; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 02:15:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=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 QeiXWX_0JT6K; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 02:15:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.ccb.com (Mail-Out3.sgb.cn [124.127.253.195]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC9023A15AA; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 02:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from by10dsmd6ap1001.localdomain (unknown [10.0.159.58]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 4A7F9A7BC696DB5383C7; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 17:15:22 +0800 (CST)
Received: from ccb.com (unknown [11.48.130.181]) by by10dsmd6ap1001.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4KYwhT5hMtz1ylv; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 17:15:21 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [11.136.165.160] ([11.136.165.160] [11.48.130.180]) by ccb.com (MTA v8.15.3) with ESMTP id c9fe09ba6d40d052b17e7a7788a24a91 for <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>; Thu, 07 Apr 2022 17:15:18 +0800
X-Eyou-Smtpauth: yuyafeng.zh@ccb.com
X-Eyou-EnvelopeSender: yuyafeng.zh@ccb.com
Subject: RE: RTGWG feedback on APN next steps
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>
References: <204D8DE6-F51C-4551-B1D7-1D69DBCA3626@hxcore.ol>
From: =?UTF-8?B?6bG85Lqa6ZSL?= <yuyafeng.zh@ccb.com>
Message-ID: <21716c87-8898-8168-62ef-7661b38d2e06@ccb.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 17:15:18 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 vmail/2.4.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <204D8DE6-F51C-4551-B1D7-1D69DBCA3626@hxcore.ol>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------9D1724457C428B85EBA55FE6"
Content-Language: en-US
X-Eyou-Sender: <yuyafeng.zh@ccb.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/rMCvEXxor4g3bmVRDmBZQAvPRbs>
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 09:15:34 -0000

Hi WGs，

I support the creation of this APN focus group. We have clear use cases 
on APN especially for traffic steering and performance measurement. It 
will be great to have this working group focusing on APN framework.

Yafeng Yu
China Construction Bank


-------- 原始邮件 --------

主题: RTGWG feedback on APN next steps
日期: 2022-04-06 01:14
>
> 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