Re: Inter Area Requirements - draft-boyle-tewg-interarea-reqts-01.txt

[Jim Boyle <jboyle@pdnets.com>]

>
> As promised during the last IETF, we started to work on an ID collecting
> SPs requirement which will be posted by the end of this week. Could we then
> see whether we could merge the two drafts in order to make it a WG document ?
>
> JP.
>

Jean Phillipe,

I have to question your motive and approach here.  This draft was first
put into the WG because you did not feel the need was there, and you did
not want to delay inter-as draft.  So I put this together back in June.
In the following 6 months, you have not commented to the list on it's
content (except to re-affirm that inter-as use does not necessitate
inter-area), and your comment at the last WG meeting was that you thought
the draft needed more SP feedback. I do not recall, nor do I see anything
in the minutes, expressing your intent to put out a counter draft.  I've
solicited and incorporated provider feedback, however I haven't seen a
need to list a bunch of providers as authors, I don't believe that to be a
useful procedure.

Anyways, at this time I still am interested in hearing your feedback on my
draft now that you have taken an interest in making sure that inter-area
requirements are addressed.  I'm interested in feedback from all on
the list as well.  However if you feel the need to put forward a
counter-draft, I guess we can wait for that to occur, provide a round of
feedback on it, and then look at merging or choosing one.  Not necessarily
the most expedient path.  I'll leave it to Ed to decide what is the right
process for making progress here, as well as to decide how tightly to
couple this with inter-as requirements, in light of Adrian's
suggestion to put forward requirements for both at the same time.

Who knows, maybe a good time to revisit having both in one document - no?

regards,

Jim