RE: (a) Inter-Area, (b) Inter-AS (c) both (d) neither

Hi Jim

Now 5 of 8 !

IMHO a) and b) should be progressed separately

Regards, 

JL

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Jim Boyle [mailto:[email protected]]
Envoye : vendredi 28 mars 2003 21:18
A : raymond zhang
Cc : [email protected]
Objet : Re: (a) Inter-Area, (b) Inter-AS (c) both (d) neither



With 4 of the 8 authors saying they want (a) and (b) seperate, 
I now have a good feel for the set of the list which happen to
be authors.  thanks.

Anyone else?

Jim

On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, raymond zhang wrote:

> Hi Jim,
> 
> I believe a) and b) should be progressed as separate drafts ...
> Regards,
> Raymond
> 
> 
> At 09:49 PM 3/27/2003 -0500, Jim Boyle wrote:
> 
> >At the meeting, as you can tell in the minutes, it was clear to all
that
> >there is plenty support to move forward on inter-as requirements
(there
> >was at IETF55 too).
> >
> >There was a clear difference of opinion on how to do this though.
> >
> >Most felt the best approach would be to adopt
> >
>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zhang-mpls-interas-te-req-02.
txt
> >(or -03)
> >
> >as a WG document.  This will put more focus and review on it, and in
> >general keep this work from stalling in discussion ad naseum.
> >
> >The counter view (held by me, and a handful of others) was that there
are
> >clearly some that are also interested in multi-area TE, and that we
should
> >consider working toward a WG requirements document that
> >- outlined the possible scope, and defined the scope of the draft
> >- presented flushed out, coherent requirements
> >
> >At a minimum, I felt that we should not move anything to a WG
document
> >until it was clear how this fitted into our charter, and had some
> >discussion on the list confirming the general consensus of the
meeting
> >(which again, was to move forward independently on inter-as
requirements,
> >with draft-zhang becoming a WG document, and focal point of this
effort).
> >
> >In discussion with Bert, it looks like the charter is not an
> >obstacle, in fact as Raymond pointed out, it currently covers this:
> >
> >"The working group may also consider the problems of traffic
engineering
> >across autonomous systems boundaries."
> >
> >I'm just kidding about the (a) (b) (c) (d) thing, feel free to just
tell
> >it like it is :)
> >
> >thanks,
> >
> >Jim
> 
>