Yingzhen,
Thanks for your lawyerly work in refining and narrowing this text. I think it is good like this. In particular, I note that the addition of new milestone causes an alert to the AD, so the management of this process will obtain some oversight. Cheers, Adrian From: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com> Sent: 20 November 2024 01:39 To: rtgwg@ietf.org Subject: [rtgwg] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Charter updates Hi all, Thanks for the review and comments. Please see the updated charter below this email, highlighting the changes: Incubating new routing-related technologies by developing and discussing problem statements prior to reaching consensus, which can encourage proponents to request a BoF or recommend the formation of a new working group to the ADs. If the working group agrees to pursue a problem statement document, it will be added to the group’s milestones. Please send your comments to the list before 12/2. Thanks, Yingzhen ============================================================================================= 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. • Incubating new routing-related technologies by developing and discussing problem statements prior to reaching consensus, which can encourage proponents to request a BoF or recommend the formation of a new working group to the ADs. If the working group agrees to pursue a problem statement document, it will be added to the group’s milestones. 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
