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

From: "BOUCADAIR Mohamed FTRD/DMI/CAE" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 16:00:01 +0200

Hi all,
 In my opinion, a) and b) should progress independently.
Regards,
Med 

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

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.t
xt
(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