Re: New work items

[<benjamin.niven-jenkins at bt.com>]

Robert,


On 28/09/2009 19:02, "Robert Raszuk" <raszuk at cisco.com> wrote:

> Hi Benjamin,
> 
> Is there anything in the current L3VPN charter which would prohibit to
> focus on any specific topics which we would see a demand for in this
> particular WG ?

I think you may misunderstand me, I am not suggesting the current charter
prohibits anything just that calling out specific items in the charter that
the WG knows there to be a need for or interest in would be useful.

> If you could provide some examples it would be really helpful.

Eric previously provided a list of work items that provide examples of the
sort of work items/topics that it may be valuable to list explicitly.

Ben

> 
> Many thx,
> R.
> 
>> Eric, Colleagues
>> 
>> 
>> On 21/09/2009 16:49, "Eric Rosen" <erosen at cisco.com> wrote:
>>> Ross> I suppose that the IDR charter could be re-written to say a very
>>> Ross> simple "work on BGP enhancements forever". This would be a pretty
>>> Ross> accurate top-level description of what IDR does, and might not be all
>>> Ross> that different from the L3VPN WG's charter's current description of
>>> Ross> multicast work
>>> 
>>> I think that's a fairly good model, as it allows for relatively quick
>>> response to customer demands.  In many cases features are going to get
>>> implemented anyway, and the IETF should encourage, not discourage, the
>>> creation of public specifications for IETF review.  If the IESG had to
>>> pre-approve the addition of every new BGP feature to the IDR charter, the
>>> IDR WG would be a lot less useful.
>> 
>> My understanding (which of course could be wrong) was the purpose of
>> re-chartering was not to artificially restrict what L3VPN related things
>> could be worked on but rather to say "these are some specific work items we
>> think we will likely focus on as we see a demand for them now or in the near
>> future"
>> 
>> 
>> Ben
>> 
>> 
>