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

From: Cristel Pelsser <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 11:14:25 +0200

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
>
>
>

---

From: Cristel Pelsser <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 11:14:25 +0200

Dear all,

Cristel

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 17:41:32 -0400

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:

>>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

---

From: Yuichi Ikejiri <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 18:44:33 +0900

Hi,

I think that (a) and (b) should be discussed and discussed independently.
There would be some different requirements in two environment from 
SP's view, so separate discussion could make things clear.

Regards,

Yuichi
NTT Communications Corporation.

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