Yes that fixes that.
How about:
s/The following topics are expected to be an initial focus:/ In addition
to ongoing maintenance, the following topics are expected to be an
initial focus:/
I am just concerned that we need not to loose focus on work in progress.
- Stewart
On 24/01/2018 17:54, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
How about:
LSR will coordinate with CCAMP and BIER on their extensions to the LSR
IGPs as
applicable to LSV protocol operation and scale.
Thanks,
Acee
*From: *Isis-wg <isis-wg-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Alia Atlas
<akat...@gmail.com>
*Date: *Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 12:42 PM
*To: *Stewart Bryant <stewart.bry...@gmail.com>
*Cc: *OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>, "isis...@ietf.org" <isis...@ietf.org>
*Subject: *Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter
Hi Stewart,
Thanks for the quick feedback. Feel free to provide suggestions for
text changes if you have them.
You've certainly written enough charters :-)
Regards,
Alia
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 12:32 PM, Stewart Bryant
<stewart.bry...@gmail.com<mailto:stewart.bry...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Alia,
I think that this merger is long overdue, and hopefully it will
help new features to be written in an aligned way.
I think the remit to perform general maintenance should slightly
clarified since the way the charter is written they look like they
are at a lower priority than the enumerated list.
I would have thought that "LSR can coordinate with CCAMP and BIER
on their extensions " should have been more directive.
- Stewart
On 24/01/2018 17:18, Alia Atlas wrote:
Here is the proposed charter for the LSR working group
that will be created from the SPF and ISIS working groups.
This is scheduled for internal review for the IESG telechat on
February 8.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lsr/
The Link-State Routing (LSR) Working Group is chartered to
document current protocol implementation practices and
improvements, protocol usage scenarios, maintenance and
extensions of link-state routing interior gateway protocols
(IGPs) with a focus on IS-IS, OSPFv2, and OSPFv3. The LSR
Working Group is formed by merging the isis and ospf WGs and
will take on all their existing adopted work at the time of
chartering.
IS-IS is an IGP specified and standardized by ISO through ISO
10589:2002 and additional RFC standards with extensions to
support IP that has been deployed in the Internet for
decades. For the IS-IS protocol, LSR’s work is focused on IP
routing, currently based on the agreement in RFC 3563 with
ISO/JTC1/SC6. The LSR WG will interact with other standards
bodies that have responsible for standardizing IS-IS.
OSPFv2 [RFC 2328 and extensions], is an IGP that has been
deployed in the Internet for decades. OSPFv3 [RFC5340 and
extensions] provides OSPF for IPv6 and IPv4 [RFC5838] which
can be delivered over IPv6 or IPv4 [RFC 7949].
The LSR Working Group will generally manage its specific work
items by milestones agreed with the responsible Area Director.
The following topics are expected to be an initial focus:
1) Improving OSPF support for IPv6 and extensions using OSPFv3
LSA Extendibility.
2) Extensions needed for Segment Routing and associated
architectural changes
3) YANG models for IS-IS, OSPFv2, and OSPFv3 and extensions
4) Extensions for source-destination routing
[draft-ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing]
5) Potentially, extensions to better support specific network
topologies such as
ones commonly used in data centers.
The Link-State Routing (LSR) Working Group will coordinate
with other working groups, such as RTGWG, SPRING, MPLS, TEAS,
V6OPS, and 6MAN, to understand the need for extensions and to
confirm that the planned work meets the needs. LSR can
coordinate with CCAMP and BIER on their extensions to the LSR
IGPs as useful. LSR may coordinate with other WGs as needed.
Regards,
Alia
_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
isis...@ietf.org<mailto:isis...@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
