Re: [OSPF] Link-State Routing WG charter

Yes that fixes that.

How about:

s/The following topics are expected to be an initial focus:/ In addition 
to ongoing maintenance, the following topics are expected to be an 
initial focus:/

I am just concerned that we need not to loose focus on work in progress.

- Stewart


On 24/01/2018 17:54, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>
> How about:
>
> LSR will coordinate with CCAMP and BIER on their extensions to the LSR 
> IGPs as
>
> applicable to LSV protocol operation and scale.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Acee
>
> *From: *Isis-wg <[email protected]> on behalf of Alia Atlas 
> <[email protected]>
> *Date: *Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 12:42 PM
> *To: *Stewart Bryant <[email protected]>
> *Cc: *OSPF WG List <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> *Subject: *Re: [Isis-wg] Link-State Routing WG charter
>
> Hi Stewart,
>
> Thanks for the quick feedback.  Feel free to provide suggestions for 
> text changes if you have them.
>
> You've certainly written enough charters :-)
>
> Regards,
>
> Alia
>
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 12:32 PM, Stewart Bryant 
> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>     Alia,
>
>     I think that this merger is long overdue, and hopefully it will
>     help new features to be written in an aligned way.
>
>     I think the remit to perform general maintenance should slightly
>     clarified since the way the charter is written they look like they
>     are at a lower priority than the enumerated list.
>
>     I would have thought that "LSR can coordinate with CCAMP and BIER
>     on their extensions " should have been more directive.
>
>     - Stewart
>
>     On 24/01/2018 17:18, Alia Atlas wrote:
>
>         Here is the proposed charter for the LSR working group
>
>         that will be created from the SPF and ISIS working groups.
>
>         This is scheduled for internal review for the IESG telechat on
>         February 8.
>
>         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lsr/
>
>         The Link-State Routing (LSR) Working Group is chartered to
>         document current protocol implementation practices and
>         improvements, protocol usage scenarios, maintenance and
>         extensions of link-state routing interior gateway protocols
>         (IGPs) with a focus on IS-IS, OSPFv2, and OSPFv3.  The LSR
>         Working Group is formed by merging the isis and ospf WGs and
>         will take on all their existing adopted work at the time of
>         chartering.
>
>         IS-IS is an IGP specified and standardized by ISO through ISO
>         10589:2002 and additional RFC standards with extensions to
>         support IP that has been deployed in the Internet for
>         decades.  For the IS-IS protocol, LSR’s work is focused on IP
>         routing, currently based on the agreement in RFC 3563 with
>         ISO/JTC1/SC6. The LSR WG will interact with other standards
>         bodies that have responsible for standardizing IS-IS.
>
>         OSPFv2 [RFC 2328 and extensions], is an IGP that has been
>         deployed in the Internet for decades. OSPFv3 [RFC5340 and
>         extensions] provides OSPF for IPv6 and IPv4 [RFC5838] which
>         can be delivered over IPv6 or IPv4 [RFC 7949].
>
>         The LSR Working Group will generally manage its specific work
>         items by milestones agreed with the responsible Area Director.
>
>         The following topics are expected to be an initial focus:
>
>         1) Improving OSPF support for IPv6 and extensions using OSPFv3
>         LSA Extendibility.
>
>         2) Extensions needed for Segment Routing and associated
>         architectural changes
>
>         3) YANG models for IS-IS, OSPFv2, and OSPFv3 and extensions
>
>         4) Extensions for source-destination routing
>         [draft-ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing]
>
>         5) Potentially, extensions to better support specific network
>         topologies such as
>
>         ones commonly used in data centers.
>
>         The Link-State Routing (LSR) Working Group will coordinate
>         with other working groups, such as RTGWG, SPRING, MPLS, TEAS,
>         V6OPS, and 6MAN, to understand the need for extensions and to
>         confirm that the planned work meets the needs.  LSR can
>         coordinate with CCAMP and BIER on their extensions to the LSR
>         IGPs as useful.  LSR may coordinate with other WGs as needed.
>
>         Regards,
>
>         Alia
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>
>         Isis-wg mailing list
>
>         [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
>

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf