Hi Yingzhen, If we need to define extensions to routing protocols to support green networking, integrated NTN and terrestrial networks, inter-DC distributed AI training, do we need to start incubation project? In the past such extensions are standardized using the current process without rechartering RTGWG. Perhaps I am missing something.
Thanks Hesham On Mon, Oct 21, 2024, 7:48 PM Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear RTGWG, > > It's been a while since the RTGWG charter was last updated, and it’s now > due for an recharter. However, given the nature of the RTGWG, much of the > existing charter text still applies. The main changes are as follows: > > 1. A significant addition to the charter is the inclusion of a large > topic on incubating new routing-related technologies. > 2. Editorial changes for improved clarity. > > Please find the updated text below in this email, as well as an attached > Word document with highlighted changes. Also we recently removed some > outdated milestones that were over 10 years old. > > Kindly review and share your feedback with the list. > > Thanks, > Jeff and Yingzhen (co-chairs of RTGWG) > > > *Charter for Working Group* > The Routing Area Working Group (RTGWG) is chartered to provide a > venue to discuss, evaluate, support and develop proposals for > new work in the Routing Area. It may also work on specific small topics > that do not fit within any existing working groups. An example of such a > small topic is a draft that might otherwise be AD-sponsored but which could > benefit from the review and consensus that RTGWG can provide. > > Options for handling new work include: > • Directing the work to an existing WG (including RTGWG) > • Developing a proposal for a BoF. > • Developing a charter and establishing consensus for a new WG. This > option will primarily be used for fairly mature and/or well-defined > efforts. > • Conducting a careful evaluation, which may lead to deferring or > rejecting work. > > It is expected that the proposals for new work will only include items > which > are not aligned with the work of other WGs or that may span multiple WGs. > The Area Directors and WG Chairs can provide guidance if there is any > doubt whether a topic should be discussed in RTGWG. > > A major objective of the RTGWG is to provide timely and clear > dispositions of new efforts. Where there is consensus to take > on new work, the WG will strive to quickly find a suitable home for it. > Reconsideration of proposals which have failed to gather consensus > will be prioritized behind proposals for new work which have not > yet been considered. In general, requests for reconsideration > should only be made once a proposal has been significantly > revised. > > If RTGWG decides that a particular topic should be addressed by > a new WG, the chairs will recommend the work to the Routing ADs > with a summary of the evaluation. The Routing ADs may then choose > to follow the normal IETF chartering process (potential BoF, IETF-wide > review of the proposed charter, etc.). > > Guiding principles for the evaluation of new work by RTGWG will include: > 1. Providing a clear problem statement for proposed new work. > 2. Prioritizing new efforts to manage the trade-offs between urgency, > interest, and available resources in the Routing Area. > 3. Identifying commonalities among ongoing efforts, which may indicate > the need to develop more general, reusable solutions. > 4. Ensuring appropriate cross-WG and cross-area review. > 5. Protecting the architectural integrity of the protocols developed > in the Routing Area and ensuring that work has significant applicability. > > RTGWG may also work on specific small topics that do not fit within an > existing working group. An example of such a small topic is a draft that > might otherwise be AD-sponsored but which could benefit from the review and > consensus that RTGWG can provide. > > RTGWG may work on larger topics, but must be explicitly rechartered to add > it. The specific larger topics that RTGWG is currently chartered to work on > include: > • Enhancements to hop-by-hop distributed > routing (e.g., unicast and multicast routing, LDP/MPLS , Segment Routing) > related to fast convergence with a goal of fast-reroute mechanisms to > provide up to complete coverage when the potential failure would not > partition the network. All work in this area should be specifically > evaluated by the WG in terms of > practicality and applicability to deployed networks. > • Routing related YANG models that are not within the scope of other RTG > working > groups. > • Incubation of routing-related new technologies, particularly focusing > on problem statements, prior to achieving consensus for creating a new > working group. This includes, but not limited to, the following topics: > satellite routing, routing in data centers, and networking for AI clusters. > > The working group milestones will be updated as needed to reflect the > proposals currently being worked on and the target dates for their > completion. > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list -- rtgwg@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to rtgwg-le...@ietf.org >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list -- rtgwg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to rtgwg-le...@ietf.org
