Re: RTGWG feedback on APN next steps

Hi Chairs,

Thanks for initiating this call for the feedback!

I support the creation of a new WG and will participate and contribute to
it.

A dedicated home to reach a rough consensus on the scope of the problem and
framework is necessary to make progress. I see that there are still some
concerns that have been expressed on the list, but IMHO the chances of
resolving them in a dedicated WG are higher as we drive towards consensus.
I agree that the scope of the WG and the charter would need to be well
crafted.

Thanks!
Dhruv

On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:45 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
>