Subject: [Int-area] AERO/OMNI transition to the IETF (abridged)

From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2021 22:01:18 +0000

(Trying again – previous attempt exceeded the intarea list MTU and I got back a
“Message Too Big” error)

Fred, thanks for posting again with Cc:’s trimmed to make it more palatable to lists.
Your point about working group charters are noted; I looked at the charters and have
the following impressions:

1) Scope of both AERO and OMNI are too broad for the current 6man charter. If
anyone disagrees I am happy to discuss AERO/OMNI as 6man wg items but past
overtures to that particular wg have been met with contempt and disdain.

2) AERO fits well with the rtgwg charter. I have contacted the rtgwg chairs and AD
in a private email to express the same. A number of technical discussion points
were raised during the rtgwg presentation at IETF111, and addressed in this post:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/oNPr8BA_4esFDXTmY-CbBRhkJ2I/

3) OMNI fits well with the intarea charter. I have contacted the intarea wg chairs
and AD in a private email to express the same. No technical discussion points
were raised during the intarea presentation at IETF111.

About IPv6 networks, whatever our past communications may have been I am
happy to talk about IPv6 networks all day long within the context of the current
AERO and OMNI specs. AERO/OMNI can be applied to all IP networks regardless
of the IP protocol version.

About turning ATN into an IETF working group, sure why not. I already have that
experience (as well as battle scars) from taking the lead on turning DTN into an
IETF working group. But, forming a working group requires significant time and
energy that I am not sure the aviation community can muster. And, AERO/OMNI
may have benefitted from aviation community input but as it turns out are in no
way limited to that one specific use case. The aviation use case is very significant
to be sure, but the AERO/OMNI domains of applicability are far more broad than
just one use case.

Fred T.
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2021 16:36:06 +0000

Fred, regarding turning ATN into an IETF working group if that is going to happen
then someone else besides me is going to have to head up the effort. I have been
there and done that for other working groups, and do not need to go through that
pain again.

So, unless someone on the ATN list wants to stand up and volunteer to do what it
takes to turn the list into an IETF working group, this leaves us with two alternatives:
1) have the work adopted by an existing IETF working group(s), or 2) re-submit the
documents to the RFC-ISE stream. Or, I suppose a third alternative is to just forget
the whole thing.

Fred