IETF Logo Mail Archive

答复: RTGWG feedback on APN next steps

Feng Yang <yangfeng@chinamobile.com> Wed, 06 April 2022 12:45 UTC

Return-Path: <yangfeng@chinamobile.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 606393A19B1; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 05:45:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=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 wfMfYPi3SILY; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 05:45:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmccmta2.chinamobile.com (cmccmta2.chinamobile.com [221.176.66.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD1263A19AF; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 05:45:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-RM-TagInfo: emlType=0
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from spf.mail.chinamobile.com (unknown[172.16.121.7]) by rmmx-syy-dmz-app08-12008 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee8624d8b6b076-2416f; Wed, 06 Apr 2022 20:45:33 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee8624d8b6b076-2416f
X-RM-TagInfo: emlType=0
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from YANGPC (unknown[10.2.51.77]) by rmsmtp-syy-appsvr04-12004 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee4624d8b6c260-d86eb; Wed, 06 Apr 2022 20:45:33 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee4624d8b6c260-d86eb
From: "Feng Yang" <yangfeng@chinamobile.com>
To: "'Jeff Tantsura'" <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, "'RTGWG'" <rtgwg@ietf.org>, "'rtgwg-chairs'" <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>, <rtg-ads@ietf.org>
References: <204D8DE6-F51C-4551-B1D7-1D69DBCA3626@hxcore.ol>
In-Reply-To: <204D8DE6-F51C-4551-B1D7-1D69DBCA3626@hxcore.ol>
Subject: =?utf-8?Q?=E7=AD=94=E5=A4=8D:_RTGWG_feedback_on_APN_next_s?= =?utf-8?Q?teps?=
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 20:45:32 +0800
Message-ID: <005401d849b4$34803cf0$9d80b6d0$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0055_01D849F7.42A37CF0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AQHYSRD1ccYIkDCoa0yZH31qhmprHKzi1Ygg
Content-Language: zh-cn
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/zT77wHJzinDvpKufGPoxjNfJMH8>
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: Wed, 06 Apr 2022 12:45:41 -0000

Hi folks, 

 

After so many rounds of clarifications and a lot of work, now APN has a very clear scope as well as problem statement. We also have an use case draft of APN. 

We support the suggestion to have this APN focused WG and we would like to join the work on the APN framework. 

 

BR，

Feng Yang

 

发件人: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Jeff Tantsura
发送时间: 2022年4月6日 01:15
收件人: RTGWG; rtgwg-chairs; rtg-ads@ietf.org
主题: RTGWG feedback on APN next steps

 

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

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email