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

From: Jim Boyle <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 21:49:07 -0500 (EST)

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

---

From: Sudheer Dharanikota <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:22:34 -0500

Hi Jim:

Finally we are moving towards inter-area TE work :-)

We should have two separate work items one for (a)
and one for (b). Also we should move them in parallel
with a subset of people responsible for both. This will
make us see the similarities in the solutions, if any.

Should we revive our inter-area drafts now :-)

- sudheer

---

From: Jean Philippe Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:38:19 -0500

Hi Jim,

I guess you already know my opinion on this ;-) Have two separate drafts 
one for a) and one for b)
Regarding b), Raymond and I will submit in the next 1-2 weeks time frame 
the rev -03 of our inter-AS reqs draft

Thanks.

JP.

---

From: Jim Boyle <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:43:52 -0500 (EST)

> Should we revive our inter-area drafts now :-)

yes, please do.

---

From: Paul Mabey <[email-masked]>
Date: 28 Mar 2003 09:48:21 -0700

I believe we should progress both (a) and (b) as separate drafts. As a
supporter of the Inter-AS requirements draft, I would like to see this
work progressed without being slowed down or over-complicated by
inter-area issues. 

-- 
Paul Mabey <[email-masked]>
Qwest Communications

---

From: Kenji Kumaki <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:48:29 +0900

Hi Jim,

We should work both (a) and (b) as separate drafts.
As a contributing author of the Inter-AS requirements draft,
I want this draft adopted as a WG document ASAP.

-- 
Kenji Kumaki <[email-masked]>
KDDI 

On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 21:49:07 -0500 (EST)

---

From: raymond zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:32:13 -0800

Hi Jim,

I believe a) and b) should be progressed as separate drafts ...
Regards,
Raymond

---

From: Jim Boyle <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:18:03 -0500 (EST)

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

---

From: "JACQUENET Christian FTLD/IAP" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:16:03 +0200

Dear all,

I support
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zhang-mpls-interas-te-req-02.txt
to be adopted as a WG document.

Cheers,

Christian.

-----Message d'origine-----
De : [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]De la
part de Jim Boyle
Envoye : vendredi 28 mars 2003 03:49
A : [email-masked]
Objet : (a) Inter-Area, (b) Inter-AS (c) both (d) neither

thanks,

Jim