It is not clear to me that there is a well-defined problem or a
willingness to embrace community process around the APN work. (Feedback
suggesting that there are existing approaches to be considered has
consistently been met with repetitions of the same "new" proposals.)
That said, whether "a focus WG, with a set of well defined deliverables
and milestones" would be a good idea or not depends in large part on
what the terms are for the WG. I can imagine cases which, while I might
think them less than useful, would not be harmful and might be helpful.
I can equally imagine terms from the same premise that would be
unacceptable.
Yours,
Joel
On 4/5/2022 1:14 PM, Jeff Tantsura 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 [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>. 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
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
