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

[Paul Mabey <pmabey@qmail.qwest.net>]

I believe we should progress both (a) and (b) as separate drafts. As a
supporter of the Inter-AS requirements draft, I would like to see this
work progressed without being slowed down or over-complicated by
inter-area issues. 

-- 
Paul Mabey <pmabey@qmail.qwest.net>
Qwest Communications

On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 19:49, 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
> 
>