[GROW] Virtual Aggregation as GROW working group item

[Paul Francis <francis at mpi-sws.org>]

Gang,

I would like to start the discussion of making Virtual Aggregation, which 
I presented at the GROW meeting in SF, a working group item.

A new version of the document has been posted, which mainly consists of 
minor clarifications from folks who make up an expanded author list 
(Zhang, Jen, and Raszuk).  It is at 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-francis-intra-va-01.txt.

Note that there are two companion documents associated with this, one each 
on the specifics of MPLS and IP-in-IP tunnels in support of VA.  These 
have not been updated, though we expect them to be soon.  (These are at 
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-francis-va-tunnels-mpls-00.txt and 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-xu-va-tunnels-gre-00.txt 
respectively)

I think that there are mainly two things to discuss:

1.  What additional documentation, if any, is needed (requirements, 
scenarios, MIB, ....)?
2.  What should the status of the produced RFCs be (informational, BCP, 
standard)?

Regarding the first, I do think that a requirements/scenarios document is 
a good idea, but would like to hear opinions.

Regarding the second, there are arguments for and against each type. 
Strictly speaking no protocol changes are needed (except for a case 
involving GRE tunnels with key values, which require an extended 
communities attribute to convey the key info).  So informational or BCP 
could both work.  I'm inclined towards BCP, but would like to hear 
opinions.  Even possibly we could start this as a working group item 
without making this decision just yet.

Thanks all,

PF