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

Dear all,

I also think that (a) and (b) should progress separately.

Cristel

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
>
>
>