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

[Jim Boyle <jboyle@pdnets.com>]

On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Sudheer Dharanikota wrote:

> 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 :-)

yes, please do.

> 
> - sudheer
> 
> 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
>