Re: [GROW] Virtual Aggregation as GROW working group item

[Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow at gmail.com>]

On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh at joelhalpern.com> wrote:
> I would like to see Grow work on these documents.
> My inclination would be to target the for publicaiton as Informational RFCs.

That seems reasonable. Inside a single ASN or single set of
cooperating  ASN's it seems reasonable to accept longer stretch and
win some longer life for your gear.

> I do think we need an I-D that explores / explains the applicable space
> better, so folks can evaluate the cost-benefit tradeoff of using this
> approach.  Whether that ends up dying off, becoming its own document, or
> incorporated in part into the main document, is much less of an issue for
> me.
>
> Yours,
> Joel M. Halpern
>
> PS: I presume that there are some procedural obstacles to be overcome in

I THINK all that's required is a consensus that the doc should be
homed in 'some group' (call it grow-wg for this discussion) and then
to officially adopt it as such (via chairs sending the requested doc
forward as an accepted WG doc, where it gets renamed from
draft-paul-blah to draft-grow-blah)...

Are there any folks attempting to block this as a work-item for Grow?

-Chris

> adopting this work.  If the WG wants to do this, and if the chairs want some
> help dealing with any procedural obstacles, I am happy to help.
>
> Paul Francis wrote:
>>
>> From:
>> Paul Francis <francis at mpi-sws.org>
>> To: grow at ietf.org
>> Date: 04/24/2009 05:01 PM
>> Subject: [GROW] Virtual Aggregation as GROW working group item
>> Sent by: grow-bounces at ietf.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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GROW mailing list
>> GROW at ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> GROW mailing list
> GROW at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
>