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

I also agree they should be progressed separately, with draft-zhang adopted 
as a WG draft.

Thanks,
Andy

------

At 4/1/2003 11:14 AM +0200, Cristel Pelsser wrote:

>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
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>