On 23/09/2014 09:27, [email protected] wrote:
Hi,
Please find below 2 feedbacks:
1)Small topics
"and may work on specific small topics that do not fit with an
existing working group."
"RTGWG may also work on specific small topics that do not fit with an existing
working group."
What about work which is general to Link State Protocols i.e. not
specific to IS-IS and OSPF protocols. Should it be done once in RTGWG
or twice in both IS-IS & OSPF WGs?
e.g. draft-litkowski-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement
<http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/90/slides/slides-90-rtgwg-1.pdf> ,
draft-decraene-rtgwg-backoff-algo
<http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/90/slides/slides-90-rtgwg-2.pdf>
Bruno,
I don't think either of these as being a problem.
For RTGWG to take on new work it needs to be noted in the charter and
that in turn needs to be approved by the IESG. Minor, non-controversial,
items are nodded through so there is no drama there. However part of the
discussion with the AD would surely be whether the work belonged in
RTGWG, or some other WG, and thus matter such as you are concerned about
would normally be handled on a case by case basis.
I therefore would be reluctant to see anything in the charter on this
(the concept not the specific drafts) because every case is different.
2)BoF/new WG
"Options for handling new work include:
- Developing a proposal for a BoF.
- Developing a charter and establishing consensus for a new WG"
It seems to me that so far the above work was currently performed in
Routing Area plenary meetings.
Do we want to move this to RTGWG? If so
- I'm a bit concerned that such activities are less technically
oriented, possibly political and involving many discussions and hence
could delay the technical work in RTGWG.
- What's the remaining use of the Routing Area plenary meeting? A top
down summary of latest WG status?
I am sure the ADs will change the time allocated to the Open meeting on
a case by case basis, and of course cross area work is often discussed
there.
The goal as here is to use RTGWG to fulfill the role of the RIA area
DISPATCH WG, and have a lightweight and speedy way of introducing new
work into the IETF Routing Area, something that I am sure will be needed
as we ride through the various transitions taking place in our industry.
I am sure the RTGWG chairs will request additional meeting time and
partition the agenda if there is a need to ensure that a controversial
new work item does not impinge on existing technical work.
- Stewart
Thanks,
Regards,
Bruno
*From:*rtgwg [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Alvaro
Retana (aretana)
*Sent:* Monday, September 22, 2014 9:28 PM
*To:* [email protected]
*Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected]
*Subject:* rtgwg Rechartering
Hi!
I hope many/most of you followed the 'RTG Area Tuning' discussions
over the last couple of months..and in the rtgarea meeting in Toronto.
As part of the tuning it was proposed to clarify rtgwg's charter to
better explain our mission of developing work proposals that do "not
yet rise to the level where a new working group is justified, yet the
topic does not fit with an existing working group,
and it is either not ready for a BOF or a single BOF would not provide
the time to ensure a mature proposal" (from the current charter).
To that end we have written up a new charter with the help of the ADs.
Please take a look: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-rtgwg/
As you read the proposed new charter, you should notice that there are
3 components to what the WG will be doing:
1. Larger topics on demand, such as the current FRR work. No change.
2. Small topics (that don't fit in other WGs). "An example of a
small topic is a draft that might otherwise be AD-sponsored but
which could benefit from the review and consensus that RTGWG can
provide." We have already put forth for WG consideration a couple
of these (draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc is an example).
3. Be an "optional venue to discuss, evaluate, support and develop
proposals for new work in the Routing Area". I don't think this
type of work is new to rtgwg: you may recall the energy efficiency
work we discussed a few meetings ago. But we do spend more
time discussing this item on the charter.
Please send comments/question/concerns/suggestions in reply to this
e-mail.
Thanks!
Alvaro.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
--
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
