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

[Dave McDysan <dave.mcdysan@wcom.com>]

I believe I agree with the sentiment of Jerry's note, but would say that we
are not only looking for synergies; but would aslo include assumptions or
implications in the coordination of these efforts. For example, I believe
that the draft on (b) inter-AS requirements makes some assumptions on what
(a) inter-area must do within a multi-area AS.

I suggest that (b) can advance independently as long as these implications
are assumptions are captured as part of the requirements documentation
process.

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-te-wg@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-te-wg@ops.ietf.org]On
Behalf Of Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 11:22 AM
To: Jim Boyle
Cc: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS; te-wg@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: (a) Inter-Area, (b) Inter-AS (c) both (d) neither


I agree that we should progress a) and b) independently, but take note of
any possible synergies.

Also, icw item a):

Sudheer> Should we revive our inter-area drafts now
Jim> yes, please do.

Several of us collaborated on multi-area TE requirements a while back:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf-announce/Current/msg15882.html
has expired, but is still available at:
http://www.watersprings.org/links/mlr/id/draft-ash-multi-area-te-reqmts-01.t
xt

This can be updated and progressed if there is interest.

Thanks,
Jerry