From nobody Tue Jul 1 01:25:05 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA01E1A03BE; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 19:23:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S75q4eLV5OIe; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 19:23:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ufisa.uninett.no (ufisa.uninett.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2::152:127]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 495CF1A00BE; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 19:23:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2001:420:c0c8:1004::166] (unknown [IPv6:2001:420:c0c8:1004::166]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3FA2C83A9; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 04:23:43 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <53B21B77.4000006@venaas.com> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 19:22:47 -0700 From: Stig Venaas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Toerless Eckert , Abdussalam Baryun Subject: Re: FW: Routing Area organization References: <6BCE198E4EAEFC4CAB45D75826EFB07603179161@eusaamb101.ericsson.se> <023f01cf8fac$e226e360$a674aa20$@olddog.co.uk> <20140630205758.GR22713@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <20140630205758.GR22713@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/H1OUrwcCk-1FGKTfVAbLPnnnbuA X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 01:25:04 -0700 Cc: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" , "routing-discussion@ietf.org" , pim@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 02:23:50 -0000 Hi On 6/30/2014 1:57 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 09:23:50PM +0100, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: >>> >>> I am not sure why to leave PIM alone. The PIM is a protocol focus group, >> so it should be more functional focus, maybe focus on multicast functions. > > AFAIK, it already has that focus if you read the charter, eg: > in general it deals with all IP multicast routing/protocol issues, eg: for > example anything MAGMA was doing previously. Multicast things > are only done in other WGs when it is multicast+FOO and FOO-WG > feels they want to own it. Which in general is a good thing because > it help to ensure multicast+FOO becomes more mainstrain within FOO. Yes, it's basically multicast protocol work at this point. For multicast we have mboned which is operational, and pim which is protocols. You're right that if it is multicast+FOO, then it is usually done in FOO, which I also think is good. Stig > I may be wrong. Cc'ed the WG for further clarification. > > The working group name has only been kept for historic fondness. > >> Also other WG that focus on one protocol should consider discussing their >> WG because usually the ones in protocol-WG are more aware to adapt to other >> functions. > > Agreed. Functional grouping is certainly more desirable than protocol > centric WGs. > > Cheers > Toerless >> >> AB > >> _______________________________________________ >> routing-discussion mailing list >> routing-discussion@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion > > _______________________________________________ > routing-discussion mailing list > routing-discussion@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion > From nobody Tue Jul 1 02:44:27 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9D861A0024 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 02:44:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.151 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.151 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G4O6fFUdhBv8 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 02:44:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8C6A1A001B for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 02:44:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2668; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1404207859; x=1405417459; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=7qRunB1d4j0suTNggSe6oQ4j4ckKTiYCVNmyxoEUUQA=; b=beW7bSx4GCfjsqkpi/I39nXiNGzrsWezd+Z9jURrhT9g6sH//u9HqZSX 7XuaK335CKp5wTSE4cKEKZNnwPP1yxRxtPBBdOwGGAbAENl+RTK+k7RXk 4oOfqmG1UKTmIG4Y3ZEIL3UOEMOzgRuipIvHcwewYcRtTy9fwdlPmvHoU c=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlcFALqCslOtJssW/2dsb2JhbABar1wBAQEBAQEFAW4BljKDGQGBH3WEAwEBAQR4ARALBAEJCgkWDwkDAgECAUUGAQwBBwEBiD6yaJUWF4VkiSMHhEMFmmGTf4ND X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.01,581,1400025600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="97415828" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Jul 2014 09:44:17 +0000 Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.70.36]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s619iGAa021692 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 1 Jul 2014 09:44:17 GMT Received: from STBRYANT-M-R010.CISCO.COM (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cisco.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id s619iDfO017759; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 10:44:15 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <53B282F0.1030504@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 10:44:16 +0100 From: Stewart Bryant User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rob Shakir , Abdussalam Baryun Subject: Re: Routing Area organization References: <6BCE198E4EAEFC4CAB45D75826EFB07603179161@eusaamb101.ericsson.se> <023f01cf8fac$e226e360$a674aa20$@olddog.co.uk> <2F385896-4AA9-4EC8-954D-CBA1BCEB0868@rob.sh> In-Reply-To: <2F385896-4AA9-4EC8-954D-CBA1BCEB0868@rob.sh> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010307010409060709070506" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/y7hFDDHbMujuyOW-SK976BgwO4o Cc: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" , "routing-discussion@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 09:44:23 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------010307010409060709070506 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 29/06/2014 12:56, Rob Shakir wrote: > Abdussalam, > > Like Loa, I'm not too clear on the point that you are making here. > Perhaps you can clarify for us? > > rtgwg does a valuable job of picking up items that are not necessarily > protocol specific, but require standardisation. The work on composite > links, and IP FRR are good examples of this. In addition - it provides > the hugely valuable roles of allowing operational considerations for > wider routing issues to be considered, as well as the introduction and > evaluation of new ideas, without a significant process overhead, which > may subsequently be added to an existing WG's charter, or result in a > new WG being formed. > > I would strongly oppose closing rtgwg. > > Cheers, > r. > +1 Stewart --------------010307010409060709070506 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 29/06/2014 12:56, Rob Shakir wrote:
Abdussalam,

Like Loa, I’m not too clear on the point that you are making here. Perhaps you can clarify for us?

rtgwg does a valuable job of picking up items that are not necessarily protocol specific, but require standardisation. The work on composite links, and IP FRR are good examples of this. In addition - it provides the hugely valuable roles of allowing operational considerations for wider routing issues to be considered, as well as the introduction and evaluation of new ideas, without a significant process overhead, which may subsequently be added to an existing WG’s charter, or result in a new WG being formed.

I would strongly oppose closing rtgwg.

Cheers,
r.

+1

Stewart
--------------010307010409060709070506-- From nobody Tue Jul 1 03:32:04 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B95821A001C for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 03:32:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GV8gELv-XjHG for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 03:32:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yh0-x22b.google.com (mail-yh0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27F561A002A for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 03:32:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yh0-f43.google.com with SMTP id a41so5813557yho.2 for ; Tue, 01 Jul 2014 03:32:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=rrXsGScS9OypX7VORyYTWe/jkWNKQgc4SPhbdm53JLs=; b=qJfzuapzBy6peRY2g1zRt9WwJ54+lHh+Fods8cMuNUKJTDMV/rGZw7Mw5FdnmWBRas MSSivUuZfAKafvNeN/gdC8HDr4krO2uTGkrrYnaUfar/C+hAlcMKgHP9WuR+Naoini0n YW2Cu2gBWo3NQVCawGim9zlCUBOls2She+/g/i4WH0+JOv8DfTGPKmq9pI+kj+JQd9I4 B1Adk9ZknTWg6CPvEos5xQ5J5K/PjELDkA85fQym11Xf0223fZpwi9uNwhzp182mvurw rG2JyKJDZ/nl/sRbceg453CkFdtZM9TMkqKBHAUfM1phnev8H+JR4hTp2CkCuavJBx1r Xb8w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.191.74 with SMTP id f50mr51349612yhn.9.1404210720457; Tue, 01 Jul 2014 03:32:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.194.19 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 03:32:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 11:32:00 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Dispatcher WG or Area list (was Re: FW: Routing Area organization From: Abdussalam Baryun To: "Joel M. Halpern" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf303f69962ec89404fd1f49ed Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/G7vfkwZtmxYnzNs5aAqnJeB2JTE Cc: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" , "routing-discussion@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 10:32:02 -0000 --20cf303f69962ec89404fd1f49ed Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Joel, (Sorry for the long message, but sometimes people tell me my short is difficult to parse) I don't mind any current WG if community wants it to continue, but I wanted to re-organise area with some ideas that can be refused. However, I don't think my confusion was only the name rtgwg, but also confused by this WG's purpose and its general functions. The WG functions should be very clearly related to Routing and this WG needs to get all routing-community interested otherwise this WG will become weak even if some participants/ADs want it to continue. I understand that this Area's WGs are all engineering WGs. One question point is: Are all the functions in the Dispatcher WG administrative or planning or engineering? If it is not engineering then it should not belong to Routing Area as WG-function, but it can be routing-area-list otherwise General Area WG. If we like dispatch for new ideas related to area or any of its WGs then one focused area-list is enough. I prefer we use this routing-discussion list to discuss new ideas and new functions and new future WG issues (I thought this list was for the plannings and new ideas, seems others are working without me aware). For example, if dispatcher WG function can open/recommend new small WGs within the area, then it may be able to re-organise the area without this routing-discussion list involved. Therefore, I suggest the charter of this WG should be very specific with clear engineering functions that do not conflict with known discussion-channels, and they can do only specific new-idea discussions within WG channels. Furthermore, other idea discussion and new WG are for routing-discussion list and Area meetings. Overall, if the community-of-routing-area does not want to close the planning-WG-functions in rtgwg then maybe we need to close this routing-discussion list. AB On Monday, June 30, 2014, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > Following the lead of RAI< we could call it Routing Dispatcher instead of > RTGWG, if that would help folks understand it better. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 6/30/14, 10:16 AM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) wrote: > >> Rob, >> >> The point I took from the email is that it's difficult to tell what the >> rtgwg is supposed to do (at least from the name). Calling it the >> "Routing Area Working Group" seems less like a name, and more like >> throwing IETF keywords against the wall until a sufficient number of >> them stick together. ;-) >> I admit, I don't have a proposal here, although if one is necessary, we >> could borrow your text and call it the "Picking up items that are not >> necessarily protocol specific, but require standardization" Working >> Group. One obvious downside would be the length of the spiffy group-name >> acronym, I guess. ;-) >> >> One other thing from your email caught my attention, and I was wondering >> if I could get some clarification. You state the WG is partially for >> "...as well as the introduction and evaluation of new ideas=E2=80=A6". I= sn't the >> introduction and evaluation of new work part of *all* of the working >> groups? Or (and this is addressed to the ADs), has something changed >> that we all need to be aware of? >> >> Regards, >> Stan > > --20cf303f69962ec89404fd1f49ed Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Joel,
(Sorry for the long message, but sometimes people tell me my s= hort is=C2=A0difficult to parse)

I don't mind an= y current WG if community wants it to continue,=C2=A0but I wanted=C2=A0to r= e-organise area with some ideas that can be refused.=C2=A0However,=C2=A0I d= on't think my confusion was only the name rtgwg,=C2=A0but also confused= by=C2=A0this WG's purpose and its=C2=A0general=C2=A0functions. The WG= =C2=A0functions should be very clearly related to Routing=C2=A0and this=C2= =A0WG needs to=C2=A0get all routing-community interested otherwise this WG = will become weak even if some participants/ADs=C2=A0want it to continue. I = understand that this Area's WGs are all engineering WGs.=C2=A0

One question point is:=C2=A0Are all=C2=A0the functions = in the Dispatcher=C2=A0WG=C2=A0administrative or planning or=C2=A0engineering? If it is not engineering then it should not belong to Rout= ing Area as WG-function, but it can be=C2=A0routing-area-list otherwise=C2= =A0General Area WG.=C2=A0If we like dispatch for new=C2=A0ideas related to = area or any of its WGs then=C2=A0one focused area-list is enough.=C2=A0I pr= efer we use this routing-discussion list=C2=A0to discuss new ideas and new = functions and new future=C2=A0WG issues (I thought this list was for the pl= annings and new ideas, seems others are working without me aware).=C2=A0

For example, if=C2=A0dispatcher WG function=C2=A0can op= en/recommend=C2=A0new small WGs=C2=A0within the area, then it may be able t= o re-organise the area without this routing-discussion list involved. There= fore, I suggest=C2=A0the charter of this WG should be very specific with cl= ear engineering=C2=A0functions=C2=A0that do=C2=A0not conflict with known di= scussion-channels, and they=C2=A0can do only=C2=A0specific new-idea discuss= ions within WG channels. Furthermore,=C2=A0other idea discussion and new WG= are for=C2=A0routing-discussion list=C2=A0and Area meetings.=C2=A0

Overall, if the community-of-routing-area does not want= to close the planning-WG-functions in rtgwg then maybe we need to close th= is routing-discussion list.=C2=A0

AB

On Monday, June 30, 2014, Joel M. Halpern wr= ote:
Following the lead of RAI< we cou= ld call it Routing Dispatcher instead of RTGWG, if that would help folks un= derstand it better.

Yours,
Joel

On 6/30/14, 10:16 AM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) wrote:
Rob,

The point I took from the email is that it's difficult to tell what the=
rtgwg is supposed to do (at least from the name). Calling it the
"Routing Area Working Group" seems less like a name, and more lik= e
throwing IETF keywords against the wall until a sufficient number of
them stick together. ;-)
I admit, I don't have a proposal here, although if one is necessary, we=
could borrow your text and call it the "Picking up items that are not<= br> necessarily protocol specific, but require standardization" Working Group. One obvious downside would be the length of the spiffy group-name acronym, I guess. ;-)

One other thing from your email caught my attention, and I was wondering if I could get some clarification. You state the WG is partially for
"...as well as the introduction and evaluation of new ideas=E2=80=A6&q= uot;. Isn't the
introduction and evaluation of new work part of *all* of the working
groups? Or (and this is addressed to the ADs), has something changed
that we all need to be aware of?

Regards,
Stan
--20cf303f69962ec89404fd1f49ed-- From nobody Tue Jul 1 07:45:12 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 180F31A033B for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 07:45:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ImDN5okpB0AX for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 07:45:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1.bemta3.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta3.messagelabs.com [195.245.230.176]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B8801A02BA for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 07:45:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [195.245.230.131:3741] by server-16.bemta-3.messagelabs.com id 72/70-28986-379C2B35; Tue, 01 Jul 2014 14:45:07 +0000 X-Env-Sender: l.wood@surrey.ac.uk X-Msg-Ref: server-15.tower-78.messagelabs.com!1404225906!32117569!1 X-Originating-IP: [131.227.200.39] X-StarScan-Received: X-StarScan-Version: 6.11.3; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 18906 invoked from network); 1 Jul 2014 14:45:06 -0000 Received: from exht012p.surrey.ac.uk (HELO EXHT012P.surrey.ac.uk) (131.227.200.39) by server-15.tower-78.messagelabs.com with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 1 Jul 2014 14:45:06 -0000 Received: from EXHY012V.surrey.ac.uk (131.227.201.103) by EXHT012P.surrey.ac.uk (131.227.200.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.348.2; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 15:45:06 +0100 Received: from emea01-am1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (131.227.201.241) by EXHY012v.surrey.ac.uk (131.227.201.103) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.181.6; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 15:45:06 +0100 Received: from AMSPR06MB439.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.242.23.19) by AMSPR06MB438.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.242.23.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.974.11; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 14:45:05 +0000 Received: from AMSPR06MB439.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.242.23.19]) by AMSPR06MB439.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.242.23.19]) with mapi id 15.00.0974.002; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 14:45:05 +0000 From: To: , Subject: RE: Dispatcher WG or Area list (was Re: FW: Routing Area organization Thread-Topic: Dispatcher WG or Area list (was Re: FW: Routing Area organization Thread-Index: AQHPlRgpRtZLRVrWNku/Wqjpe+7KWZuLS8Fu Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 14:45:04 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-AU, en-US Content-Language: en-AU X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [124.149.114.231] x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID: x-forefront-prvs: 02596AB7DA x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(24454002)(199002)(189002)(377454003)(479174003)(76176999)(19580405001)(83322001)(19580395003)(54356999)(76482001)(81542001)(50986999)(85306003)(99396002)(77982001)(80022001)(66066001)(79102001)(20776003)(16236675004)(46102001)(81342001)(85852003)(64706001)(107046002)(74502001)(74482001)(21056001)(74662001)(86362001)(4396001)(101416001)(95666004)(83072002)(33646001)(76576001)(106116001)(561944003)(74316001)(106356001)(87936001)(2656002)(105586002)(108616002)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:AMSPR06MB438; H:AMSPR06MB439.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; LANG:en; Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_f99d5ba6e42949f99c3ebd4d612e311bAMSPR06MB439eurprd06pro_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OrganizationHeadersPreserved: AMSPR06MB438.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com X-CrossPremisesHeadersFiltered: EXHY012v.surrey.ac.uk Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/foil3UaDRRXllXVna3PqMHCi9tQ Cc: adrian@olddog.co.uk, routing-discussion@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 14:45:12 -0000 --_000_f99d5ba6e42949f99c3ebd4d612e311bAMSPR06MB439eurprd06pro_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable your long is also difficult to parse. ________________________________ From: routing-discussion on behalf of= Abdussalam Baryun Sent: Tuesday, 1 July 2014 8:32:00 PM To: Joel M. Halpern Cc: adrian@olddog.co.uk; routing-discussion@ietf.org Subject: Dispatcher WG or Area list (was Re: FW: Routing Area organization Hi Joel, (Sorry for the long message, but sometimes people tell me my short is diffi= cult to parse) I don't mind any current WG if community wants it to continue, but I wanted= to re-organise area with some ideas that can be refused. However, I don't = think my confusion was only the name rtgwg, but also confused by this WG's = purpose and its general functions. The WG functions should be very clearly = related to Routing and this WG needs to get all routing-community intereste= d otherwise this WG will become weak even if some participants/ADs want it = to continue. I understand that this Area's WGs are all engineering WGs. One question point is: Are all the functions in the Dispatcher WG administr= ative or planning or engineering? If it is not engineering then it should n= ot belong to Routing Area as WG-function, but it can be routing-area-list o= therwise General Area WG. If we like dispatch for new ideas related to area= or any of its WGs then one focused area-list is enough. I prefer we use th= is routing-discussion list to discuss new ideas and new functions and new f= uture WG issues (I thought this list was for the plannings and new ideas, s= eems others are working without me aware). For example, if dispatcher WG function can open/recommend new small WGs wit= hin the area, then it may be able to re-organise the area without this rout= ing-discussion list involved. Therefore, I suggest the charter of this WG s= hould be very specific with clear engineering functions that do not conflic= t with known discussion-channels, and they can do only specific new-idea di= scussions within WG channels. Furthermore, other idea discussion and new WG= are for routing-discussion list and Area meetings. Overall, if the community-of-routing-area does not want to close the planni= ng-WG-functions in rtgwg then maybe we need to close this routing-discussio= n list. AB On Monday, June 30, 2014, Joel M. Halpern wrote: Following the lead of RAI< we could call it Routing Dispatcher instead of R= TGWG, if that would help folks understand it better. Yours, Joel On 6/30/14, 10:16 AM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) wrote: Rob, The point I took from the email is that it's difficult to tell what the rtgwg is supposed to do (at least from the name). Calling it the "Routing Area Working Group" seems less like a name, and more like throwing IETF keywords against the wall until a sufficient number of them stick together. ;-) I admit, I don't have a proposal here, although if one is necessary, we could borrow your text and call it the "Picking up items that are not necessarily protocol specific, but require standardization" Working Group. One obvious downside would be the length of the spiffy group-name acronym, I guess. ;-) One other thing from your email caught my attention, and I was wondering if I could get some clarification. You state the WG is partially for "...as well as the introduction and evaluation of new ideas...". Isn't the introduction and evaluation of new work part of *all* of the working groups? Or (and this is addressed to the ADs), has something changed that we all need to be aware of? Regards, Stan --_000_f99d5ba6e42949f99c3ebd4d612e311bAMSPR06MB439eurprd06pro_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable your long is also difficult to parse.
From: routing-discussion &l= t;routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Abdussalam Baryun &l= t;abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 1 July 2014 8:32:00 PM
To: Joel M. Halpern
Cc: adrian@olddog.co.uk; routing-discussion@ietf.org
Subject: Dispatcher WG or Area list (was Re: FW: Routing Area organi= zation
 
Hi Joel,
(Sorry for the long message, but sometimes people tell me my short is&= nbsp;difficult to parse)

I don't mind any current WG if community wants it to continue, bu= t I wanted to re-organise area with some ideas that can be refused.&nb= sp;However, I don't think my confusion was only the name rtgwg, b= ut also confused by this WG's purpose and its general functi= ons. The WG functions should be very clearly related to Routing and t= his WG needs to get all routing-community interested otherwise th= is WG will become weak even if some participants/ADs want it to contin= ue. I understand that this Area's WGs are all engineering WGs. 

One question point is: Are all the functions in the Dispatch= er WG administrative or planning or engineering= ? If it is not engineering then it should not belong to Routing Area as WG-= function, but it can be routing-area-list otherwise General Area WG. If we like dispatch for new ideas related to area or an= y of its WGs then one focused area-list is enough. I prefer we us= e this routing-discussion list to discuss new ideas and new functions = and new future WG issues (I thought this list was for the plannings and new ideas, seems others are working without me aware). =

For example, if dispatcher WG function can open/recommend&nb= sp;new small WGs within the area, then it may be able to re-organise t= he area without this routing-discussion list involved. Therefore, I suggest=  the charter of this WG should be very specific with clear engineering functions that do not conflict with known= discussion-channels, and they can do only specific new-idea disc= ussions within WG channels. Furthermore, other idea discussion and new= WG are for routing-discussion list and Area meetings. 

Overall, if the community-of-routing-area does not want to close the p= lanning-WG-functions in rtgwg then maybe we need to close this routing-disc= ussion list. 

AB

On Monday, June 30, 2014, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Following the lead of RAI< we could call it Routing Dispatcher instead o= f RTGWG, if that would help folks understand it better.

Yours,
Joel

On 6/30/14, 10:16 AM, Stan Ratliff (sratliff) wrote:
Rob,

The point I took from the email is that it's difficult to tell what the
rtgwg is supposed to do (at least from the name). Calling it the
"Routing Area Working Group" seems less like a name, and more lik= e
throwing IETF keywords against the wall until a sufficient number of
them stick together. ;-)
I admit, I don't have a proposal here, although if one is necessary, we
could borrow your text and call it the "Picking up items that are not<= br> necessarily protocol specific, but require standardization" Working Group. One obvious downside would be the length of the spiffy group-name acronym, I guess. ;-)

One other thing from your email caught my attention, and I was wondering if I could get some clarification. You state the WG is partially for
"...as well as the introduction and evaluation of new ideas…&quo= t;. Isn't the
introduction and evaluation of new work part of *all* of the working
groups? Or (and this is addressed to the ADs), has something changed
that we all need to be aware of?

Regards,
Stan
--_000_f99d5ba6e42949f99c3ebd4d612e311bAMSPR06MB439eurprd06pro_-- From nobody Tue Jul 1 07:54:29 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28A411B27FA for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 07:54:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.151 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.151 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OI3V6ThR4QJT for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 07:54:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 317191B27EC for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 07:54:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2697; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1404226465; x=1405436065; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=cBY0C3LJ5mZ8Dz6WXQTIsMsiX4ln0wPqWGP+Xur5TTI=; b=hKXJSm3H9jpqr6dnB2XHG302cRtZEXYLBVxV5bgAhvthXFD70AjxMzr7 MwtIn+s2ttwn+ZYTbGn5F4VAvZFFYbpmluB3wkYP+FarEaWt30Pt/dSXm J4WboS4uCpKWn+J1VrnMXAzLwfvquRFoIe0VoStBs6zOZbHn2aAb5wyl+ A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnsFAOjKslOtJssW/2dsb2JhbABajQKiaAEBAQEBBQFuAZY9gxkBgSN1hAMBAQEEeRALBAETCSUPAj0JBgEMAQcBARCILrM2lR8XhW+JMAeEQwWaZZQDg0M X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.01,581,1400025600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="97549114" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Jul 2014 14:54:23 +0000 Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.70.36]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s61EsMs1014779 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 1 Jul 2014 14:54:23 GMT Received: from STBRYANT-M-R010.CISCO.COM (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cisco.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id s61EsLk0001901; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 15:54:22 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <53B2CB9D.10905@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 15:54:21 +0100 From: Stewart Bryant User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Abdussalam Baryun , "Joel M. Halpern" Subject: Re: Dispatcher WG or Area list (was Re: FW: Routing Area organization References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040401000706090004030405" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/WyOmrzchigzRmiitktNyEV8dlKc Cc: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" , "routing-discussion@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 14:54:27 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040401000706090004030405 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 01/07/2014 11:32, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > Hi Joel, > (Sorry for the long message, but sometimes people tell me my short > is difficult to parse) > > I don't mind any current WG if community wants it to continue, but I > wanted to re-organise area with some ideas that can be > refused. However, I don't think my confusion was only the name > rtgwg, but also confused by this WG's purpose and > its general functions. The WG functions should be very clearly related > to Routing and this WG needs to get all routing-community interested > otherwise this WG will become weak even if some participants/ADs want > it to continue. I understand that this Area's WGs are all engineering > WGs. The purpose of RTGWG is well defined and its work items clearly defined in its charter. Stewart --------------040401000706090004030405 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 01/07/2014 11:32, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
Hi Joel,
(Sorry for the long message, but sometimes people tell me my short is difficult to parse)

I don't mind any current WG if community wants it to continue, but I wanted to re-organise area with some ideas that can be refused. However, I don't think my confusion was only the name rtgwg, but also confused by this WG's purpose and its general functions. The WG functions should be very clearly related to Routing and this WG needs to get all routing-community interested otherwise this WG will become weak even if some participants/ADs want it to continue. I understand that this Area's WGs are all engineering WGs.
The purpose of RTGWG is well defined and its work items clearly
defined in its charter.

Stewart
--------------040401000706090004030405-- From nobody Sat Jul 5 06:26:38 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D0F11A0640 for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2014 06:26:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.551 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6cqyb5T_8OOM for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2014 06:26:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0D7A1A063F for ; Sat, 5 Jul 2014 06:26:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [2.71.59.33] (2.71.59.33.mobile.tre.se [2.71.59.33]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 592E21802B24; Sat, 5 Jul 2014 15:26:31 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <53B7FD07.4060203@pi.nu> Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2014 15:26:31 +0200 From: Loa Andersson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: stbryant@cisco.com, Abdussalam Baryun , "Joel M. Halpern" Subject: Re: Dispatcher WG or Area list (was Re: FW: Routing Area organization References: <53B2CB9D.10905@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <53B2CB9D.10905@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/X_-wSUDqisTDDsTTO7K4C6RwL6M Cc: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" , "routing-discussion@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2014 13:26:34 -0000 Folks, I think there is a very good consensus that we don't want to close the rtgwg! Can we close this discussion? /Loa On 2014-07-01 16:54, Stewart Bryant wrote: > On 01/07/2014 11:32, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: >> Hi Joel, >> (Sorry for the long message, but sometimes people tell me my short >> is difficult to parse) >> >> I don't mind any current WG if community wants it to continue, but I >> wanted to re-organise area with some ideas that can be >> refused. However, I don't think my confusion was only the name >> rtgwg, but also confused by this WG's purpose and >> its general functions. The WG functions should be very clearly related >> to Routing and this WG needs to get all routing-community interested >> otherwise this WG will become weak even if some participants/ADs want >> it to continue. I understand that this Area's WGs are all engineering >> WGs. > The purpose of RTGWG is well defined and its work items clearly > defined in its charter. > > Stewart > > > _______________________________________________ > routing-discussion mailing list > routing-discussion@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion > -- Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 From nobody Wed Jul 9 22:33:17 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C846B1B2793 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 22:33:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.701 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3OSvQ8MJv-X9 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 22:32:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qg0-x235.google.com (mail-qg0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E30E1B2794 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 22:32:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qg0-f53.google.com with SMTP id i50so7189549qgf.12 for ; Wed, 09 Jul 2014 22:32:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:mime-version:message-id:from:to:subject:content-type; bh=rcBoc9jDy54Hr2wt3PlcixKS2Q6lmBJhsjXYtDnYqp8=; b=mzPdUTWJEZABMeCjnl6xuZxqqeRHkPcJG47aXO3M/OXsVFRV36JIBPr7vQIgo8UfYR etezaHpJjjvEPZRXsFYNL9x0bZM7F8rlya32J7E3ATiiE5x+/LupUVOU4uUCvuWmgVBt pkq3qmgQWkeUBwUgr1GTO4C619PEEL5yRK7Moks3oZazmlFhoMxaCObbya24d7Jrmtu3 SCafN+dMyobBGIwYjMSWjk45E9m5Nb/CobzF6FI1vfjmQtFvWVg5ej2w2HzxtQd7k5Hy +02fM2zF/3rYkZKC7Zf3Bk41cyIxPD+aoxJw84MuA8dCmjbWxcRN0V/Mx6KlUI8U//Tl AZSg== X-Received: by 10.229.38.1 with SMTP id z1mr73800205qcd.18.1404970376251; Wed, 09 Jul 2014 22:32:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hedwig-41.prd.orcali.com (ec2-54-85-253-236.compute-1.amazonaws.com. [54.85.253.236]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id w9sm8611030qag.48.2014.07.09.22.32.55 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 09 Jul 2014 22:32:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 22:32:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Original-Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 05:32:55 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Nodemailer (0.5.0; +http://www.nodemailer.com/) Message-Id: <1404970375123.1ba33e3@Nodemailer> X-Orchestra-Oid: A3158EEC-CF90-4D3B-9E82-6589E466294C X-Orchestra-Sig: 547e22e8ff911a17f8b46b390800ec2c504a98e6 X-Orchestra-Thrid: C726DD7A-F2B2-4E76-A161-9A25CE52851B X-Orchestra-Thrid-Sig: 97fddb0be76ef68ee1aeca882595e435fb0c9c33 X-Orchestra-Account: 62b88d457809457a24fbe92718e2cb4a634c0687 From: "Will Yu" To: routing-discussion@ietf.org Subject: lyuuyllooi Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----Nodemailer-0.5.0-?=_1-1404970375566" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/4GGqkZGX0P2vbzGHxnzLmwfUwd0 X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 05:33:02 -0000 ------Nodemailer-0.5.0-?=_1-1404970375566 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable luiioipoujyk=E2=80=94 Sent from Mailbox ------Nodemailer-0.5.0-?=_1-1404970375566 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable luiioipoujyk
—
Sent from Mailbox
------Nodemailer-0.5.0-?=_1-1404970375566-- From nobody Wed Jul 16 14:01:47 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94C231A02FC for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 14:01:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4vw4mOMzcHN7 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 14:01:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 038AF1A030D for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 14:01:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s6GL1cuH008359 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 22:01:38 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s6GL1b6G008353 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 22:01:37 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: Secrets! Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 22:01:41 +0100 Message-ID: <02fb01cfa139$251bcb20$6f536160$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac+hOHzo1qUytAs/TcqX7bx+ryNpHg== Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1017-20822.002 X-TM-AS-Result: No--0.786-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--0.786-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: q6hqyMsBvpRmcP5F4hatbe9VsdrlGzy3QZXZg2I8JabsECsVIme8+ZMB NmFHEDBE4vM1YF6AJbZcLc3sLtjOt7bmZosI/5Zy3QfwsVk0UbsIoUKaF27lxUQIhWlchd5hirz M3Rin9OkDDtjXHcnNZveRV3Fb8/Bn6U//erauz3oQnvqkvzhUyPH4Zw6CTIYSNTkUN9ETOaTIC7 ukoeSlUJHPL2WHD8Jkobq1WmNYcl+MXVcJHhN2t1Mjqqxc9rqInqg/VrSZEiM= Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/t_oMlWZUMo6Rpopi6mIPMikxUyI X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 21:01:45 -0000 A well hidden secret appears to be that Open Source Routing will have a table at the Bits'n'Bites in Toronto. This is not an endorsement :-) But might be of interest to the routing geeks amongst you. Adrian From nobody Thu Jul 17 02:00:47 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47C221A0164; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 02:00:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, GB_ABOUTYOU=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qtBysORQAKGd; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 02:00:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41B231A011E; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 02:00:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s6H8R61t012352; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 09:27:06 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s6H8R5GW012346 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 17 Jul 2014 09:27:06 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: , , Subject: RTG ADs' office hours in Toronto Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 09:27:10 +0100 Message-ID: <03c501cfa198$e7c6f370$b754da50$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac+hmOS2BGbE6mcYRk+Itxz2a0ycfQ== Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1017-20822.005 X-TM-AS-Result: No--2.271-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--2.271-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: dbwu/f0cqRo6SNANGjU5lNPNaYYJeRf5fS0Ip2eEHny+qryzYw2E8M4b ajgO0kgvgZK4jdUf7rU+Aoot6UqUmMRB0bsfrpPIcSqbxBgG0w7myCUQ3qrOJN3UfQdioOnab60 IPG+mHcoTWtROkTeuhiXidVjAhEZBrX7cmKNisA4yqaEb8zSjj/QwfDO7YmjAf+weolWHdq6UTG VAhB5EbQ== Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/zJqjs9NyZnYBD-J31V_SwXv8jEA X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 09:00:44 -0000 Hi, Sunday 14.30-16.00 in "Alberta" Just drop in and talk to us about your routing concerns. Alia and Adrian From nobody Thu Jul 17 05:24:28 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E81301A0372 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 05:24:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zui4vO96WgDZ for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 05:24:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qg0-x231.google.com (mail-qg0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D66651A0564 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 05:24:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qg0-f49.google.com with SMTP id j107so1795266qga.36 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 05:24:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=uxWbSw71+hiKLvWXK0d8YEB19gz7TxTt3cfP92wQCuM=; b=vxpWAoiz8KNSVrA66W4fXLu2Kfkqj6OmS4RvzepDaq0wFn1EYOEEykvekEMnny6VoJ dbzHnr3j/kl5r1WbEOYu7XaEWPC6xEI2PRgelAzk9ElVIpiCitqDLLXeYU11lOl2qmsl uPFA7I5hFL/yb94pKaYU5w+q1V5+dBBX0507EjB+6iKNtN/Bx8VJItqBJgfpK3jXd4JO nuJaEDjvCVhj/m7GhTtKaitYI80kjBIHmdqv5vmdjoV59jcP59KDOH3pdUeCGuOFmIm4 leYez4B+u0oGF+pwMUmNZ8OBD5koS/YhkRANB4TgimrJlxgW0pKJjizHUGylIiLKa1yH oPlw== X-Received: by 10.140.88.103 with SMTP id s94mr54493658qgd.73.1405599862029; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 05:24:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.140.16.78 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 05:24:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <02fb01cfa139$251bcb20$6f536160$@olddog.co.uk> References: <02fb01cfa139$251bcb20$6f536160$@olddog.co.uk> From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 08:24:01 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Secrets! To: Adrian Farrel Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c11e1c79043c04fe62b861 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/gkFuHT7TP-S5kqqprpLB5n_3fn0 Cc: "routing-discussion@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 12:24:25 -0000 --001a11c11e1c79043c04fe62b861 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 So this is "open source" routing, not open "source routing". Could have gone either way ... Cheers, Andy On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > A well hidden secret appears to be that Open Source Routing > will have a table at the Bits'n'Bites in Toronto. > > This is not an endorsement :-) > But might be of interest to the routing geeks amongst you. > > Adrian > > > > _______________________________________________ > routing-discussion mailing list > routing-discussion@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion > --001a11c11e1c79043c04fe62b861 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
So this is "open source" routing, not open "= ;source routing". Could have gone either way ...

Ch= eers,
Andy


On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk&= gt; wrote:
A well hidden secret appears to be that Open Source Routing
<http://www.netdef.= org/> will have a table at the Bits'n'Bites in Toronto.

This is not an endorsement :-)
But might be of interest to the routing geeks amongst you.

Adrian



_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
routing-discussion@ietf.org<= /a>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion

--001a11c11e1c79043c04fe62b861-- From nobody Thu Jul 17 09:36:07 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 095231B27C1 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 09:35:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9FohcA1pnmCI for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 09:35:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-we0-x22b.google.com (mail-we0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1A761B27B1 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 09:35:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-we0-f171.google.com with SMTP id p10so3404994wes.16 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 09:35:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=Dk6bos4LgTNGaQ2CzNHo7fGlPcmSIZATJsA1nRqkx+I=; b=S1qi2me8OslDhKzEm30vJNoO5dNCOakqYS6fvBA3GsKRXN+HhOh0DTnTgK6WY5NY49 j4oQYH2kX3ui+w2s2D6ymNqsT0mbfVyPGpBTmfdc0iK0SB3PSwIZc/QGjW7IJLsKcGCp SlbfZG5F7+WRSyiV8so+FHIBZCEGO3sBNzpUTJPoNomMqw0oH9DwRADpY6hL6pn3Xc/H jjfjzwUqDrFaq0zgqMqiMb6wZb2MToqfmZUWvFvn3imTn8/SpjClN+1cuaE7RwGr8mdV oEuVs7tWO62KIHVmaiuuw6SHFmCmqzi+nXiJw+V/iuYJlqdomPHUuann6OPHYOVIUzt+ VzVw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.86.199 with SMTP id r7mr23593780wiz.20.1405614914352; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 09:35:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.180.102.7 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 09:35:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <53AAC48B.9000403@cisco.com> References: <6BCE198E4EAEFC4CAB45D75826EFB07603179161@eusaamb101.ericsson.se> <023f01cf8fac$e226e360$a674aa20$@olddog.co.uk> <53A97E59.4010406@joelhalpern.com> <53A986F5.9060608@alcatel-lucent.com> <53AAAA93.8090809@cisco.com> <53AAB69F.3050407@alcatel-lucent.com> <53AAC48B.9000403@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:35:14 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: FW: Routing Area organization From: Abdussalam Baryun To: "routing-discussion@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044280b2a93c4f04fe663907 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/e_UUoIcE8kpCAPfve3BxZCtD8xw X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 16:35:17 -0000 --f46d044280b2a93c4f04fe663907 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Adding to function focus, each WG needs to take responsibility to discuss all current WG items and work equally with editors. If one item's editors don't attend a meeting then why the WG meeting does not present and discuss the item even for 10 minutes. Open and continue discussions are the key for design centres. Our WG are not only protocol oriented but also editor oriented, so not only we need to focus on function but also responsibilities. AB --f46d044280b2a93c4f04fe663907 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Adding to function focus, each WG needs to take responsibility to discuss a= ll current=C2=A0WG items and work equally with editors. If one item's e= ditors don't attend a meeting then=C2=A0why the WG meeting=C2=A0does no= t present and discuss the item even for 10 minutes.=C2=A0

Open and continue discussions are the key for design centres= . Our WG are not only protocol oriented but also editor oriented, so not on= ly we need to focus on function but also responsibilities.=C2=A0
=
AB
--f46d044280b2a93c4f04fe663907-- From nobody Thu Jul 17 20:16:21 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 032C41A0417 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 20:16:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1jIvSU2L5KcF for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 20:16:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1.bemta5.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta5.messagelabs.com [195.245.231.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57FDA1A040B for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 20:16:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [85.158.136.51:53376] by server-9.bemta-5.messagelabs.com id 93/A0-26293-F7198C35; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 03:16:15 +0000 X-Env-Sender: l.wood@surrey.ac.uk X-Msg-Ref: server-14.tower-49.messagelabs.com!1405653375!26949174!1 X-Originating-IP: [131.227.200.35] X-StarScan-Received: X-StarScan-Version: 6.11.3; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 13917 invoked from network); 18 Jul 2014 03:16:15 -0000 Received: from exht021p.surrey.ac.uk (HELO EXHT021P.surrey.ac.uk) (131.227.200.35) by server-14.tower-49.messagelabs.com with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 18 Jul 2014 03:16:15 -0000 Received: from EXHY022V.surrey.ac.uk (131.227.201.104) by EXHT021P.surrey.ac.uk (131.227.200.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.348.2; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 04:16:14 +0100 Received: from emea01-am1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (131.227.201.241) by EXHY022v.surrey.ac.uk (131.227.201.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.181.6; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 04:16:14 +0100 Received: from AMSPR06MB439.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.242.23.19) by AMSPR06MB438.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.242.23.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.985.8; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 03:16:14 +0000 Received: from AMSPR06MB439.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.242.23.19]) by AMSPR06MB439.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.242.23.19]) with mapi id 15.00.0985.008; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 03:16:14 +0000 From: To: , Subject: RE: Secrets! Thread-Topic: Secrets! Thread-Index: Ac+hOHzo1qUytAs/TcqX7bx+ryNpHgAgYCGAAB8Qc6g= Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 03:16:13 +0000 Message-ID: <1405653373022.41976@surrey.ac.uk> References: <02fb01cfa139$251bcb20$6f536160$@olddog.co.uk>, In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-AU, en-US Content-Language: en-AU X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [122.200.59.30] x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID: x-forefront-prvs: 02760F0D1C x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(243025005)(377454003)(199002)(24454002)(189002)(19617315012)(107046002)(54356999)(46102001)(19580395003)(50986999)(4396001)(95666004)(74482001)(99396002)(66066001)(16236675004)(86362001)(19580405001)(15395725005)(19627405001)(81342001)(81542001)(105586002)(76482001)(15975445006)(36756003)(20776003)(31966008)(85306003)(74502001)(92566001)(83072002)(83322001)(77982001)(15198665003)(85852003)(79102001)(64706001)(80022001)(74662001)(101416001)(76176999)(226693001)(21056001)(15202345003)(2656002)(106356001)(87936001)(92726001)(19607625011); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:AMSPR06MB438; H:AMSPR06MB439.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; LANG:en; Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_140565337302241976surreyacuk_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OrganizationHeadersPreserved: AMSPR06MB438.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com X-CrossPremisesHeadersFiltered: EXHY022v.surrey.ac.uk Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/K9IL1zkjGzYK0l2u04bnhKxA08c Cc: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 03:16:20 -0000 --_000_140565337302241976surreyacuk_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable That's what well-placed hyphens are for. Even the Chicago Manual of Style b= elieves in hyphenating compound adjectives. http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/images/ch07_tab01.pdf Lloyd Wood http://about.me/lloydwood ________________________________ From: routing-discussion on behalf of= Andrew G. Malis Sent: Thursday, 17 July 2014 10:24 PM To: Adrian Farrel Cc: routing-discussion@ietf.org Subject: Re: Secrets! So this is "open source" routing, not open "source routing". Could have gon= e either way ... Cheers, Andy On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Adrian Farrel > wrote: A well hidden secret appears to be that Open Source Routing will have a table at the Bits'n'Bites in Toronto. This is not an endorsement :-) But might be of interest to the routing geeks amongst you. Adrian _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion --_000_140565337302241976surreyacuk_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
That's what well-placed hyphens are for. Even the Chicago Manual of Style b= elieves in hyphenating compound adjectives.

http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/images/ch07_tab01.pdf=



Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
From: routing-discussion &= lt;routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Andrew G. Malis <= ;agmalis@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, 17 July 2014 10:24 PM
To: Adrian Farrel
Cc: routing-discussion@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Secrets!
 
So this is "open source" routing, not open "= ;source routing". Could have gone either way ...

Cheers,
Andy


On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Adrian Farrel <= span dir=3D"ltr"> <adrian@olddog.= co.uk> wrote:
A well hidden secret appears to be that Open Source Routing
<http://www.netdef.= org/> will have a table at the Bits'n'Bites in Toronto.

This is not an endorsement :-)
But might be of interest to the routing geeks amongst you.

Adrian



_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
routing-discussion@ietf.org<= /a>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion

--_000_140565337302241976surreyacuk_-- From nobody Mon Jul 21 05:14:33 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCBE81B2884 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 05:14:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 37GHJd4HOqof for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 05:13:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yh0-x229.google.com (mail-yh0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 766701B2D69 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 05:13:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yh0-f41.google.com with SMTP id b6so3762162yha.0 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 05:13:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=zH/QweXFohVUha8/z1sneYfTGEoBMHnTbnOruQvTiV4=; b=i+MTW3BsjkwM7di5uRY7pKSAvsFeEQ10XtEBregHb3v7Nra6mdO5my4sGqO/4zitE4 ABhSvYLPGC7xq+LfNV2PxNFC3R0S9lhNAJfpFWu62YaB1LwuZt6hvOTyXlplFP9jFCrr rMR7A6Jg9oVzNBqPXq9m9cPWjHeTMeoKnBNr8qiaV9TZ0dTDE411fWIBbFXDgDYMeTOc EWiBd9Mb7FDB/uRqmVeutNdZLVcKszKlwFMFVCwYXrvdaDC0B0xuIIPGug6GX0QbQJae itkZMnSA/FINA2PoWRvhuntL1GoDsw1eTlHVF4YP1KV5ieMXRiPE5oIvKgACFuRHGdxf GPMA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.103.135 with SMTP id f7mr40192839yhg.102.1405944822906; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 05:13:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.130.201 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Jul 2014 05:13:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 08:13:42 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: routing area reorganization From: Alia Atlas To: "routing-discussion@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11332a2ebe467904feb309a4 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/UPf1LHOvcX9RFeSz_fju89hJR3M X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 12:14:04 -0000 --001a11332a2ebe467904feb309a4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 We've noticed that the discussion of reorganizing the routing area has diminished. As discussed in our original email, Adrian and I are are meeting with our WG chairs and directorate early in this IETF week to refine our plan and we will be discussing that plan in the Routing Area open meeting (rtgarea) on Thursday. We do value your input and are available for discussions, as always. One driver for this reorganization is to get to "right-size" working groups that are large enough to have critical mass and not so large as to have poor signal-to-noise for participants or suffer from disengagement. Our expectation is to end up with a similar number of working groups and without removing places for work to be done. Where there are working groups that are winding down or may benefit from closing, that is part of our business-as-usual that Adrian and I will take care of separately from the reorganization. Regards, Alia --001a11332a2ebe467904feb309a4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
We've noticed that the discussion of reorganizing the routing area has= diminished.
As discussed in our original email, Adrian and I are are meeting with our= WG chairs
and directorate = early in this IETF week to refine our plan and we will be discussing=C2=A0<= /div>
that plan i= n the Routing Area open meeting (rtgarea) on Thursday. =C2=A0We do value yo= ur=C2=A0
input and are av= ailable for discussions, as always.

One driver for this reorganization is to get to "right-size" work= ing groups that are large
enough to have critical mass and not so large as to have poo= r signal-to-noise for participants or suffer from disengagement.

Our expectation is to = end up with a similar number of working groups and without removing
places for work to be done.

Where there are working groups that are winding down or may bene= fit from closing, that is
part of our busi= ness-as-usual that Adrian and I will take care of separately from the reorg= anization.

Regard= s,
Alia
--001a11332a2ebe467904feb309a4-- From nobody Fri Jul 25 05:29:35 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 833A31A013B for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 05:29:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.266 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.266 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m9wjv5OidhCx for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 05:29:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0b-00103a01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00103a01.pphosted.com [67.231.152.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38B5E1B2825 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 05:29:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0002317.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00103a01.pphosted.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with SMTP id s6PCPHwd026347; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 08:29:31 -0400 Received: from mdwexght02.ciena.com (LIN1-118-36-29.ciena.com [63.118.36.29]) by mx0b-00103a01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 1napxp4mcm-1 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 25 Jul 2014 08:29:31 -0400 Received: from ONWVEXCHHT02.ciena.com (10.128.6.17) by MDWEXGHT02.ciena.com (10.4.140.213) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.298.1; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 08:31:33 -0400 Received: from ONWVEXCHMB04.ciena.com ([::1]) by ONWVEXCHHT02.ciena.com ([::1]) with mapi; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 08:31:33 -0400 From: "Shah, Himanshu" To: Adrian Farrel , "Alia Atlas (akatlas@gmail.com)" Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 08:31:32 -0400 Subject: routing area reorg Thread-Topic: routing area reorg Thread-Index: Ac+oBBNXOEpuN4KfRQqGIfquvgFnOw== Message-ID: <40746B2300A8FC4AB04EE722A593182B76DAF352@ONWVEXCHMB04.ciena.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_40746B2300A8FC4AB04EE722A593182B76DAF352ONWVEXCHMB04cie_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-10.0.0.1412-7.000.1014-20838.007 X-TM-AS-Result: No--14.738600-0.000000-31 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: Yes X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.12.52, 1.0.14, 0.0.0000 definitions=2014-07-25_04:2014-07-25,2014-07-25,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1402240000 definitions=main-1407250145 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/iuf5BvXgXBqWLV_RkvS3oNEZwGE Cc: "routing-discussion@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 12:29:34 -0000 --_000_40746B2300A8FC4AB04EE722A593182B76DAF352ONWVEXCHMB04cie_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Adrian/Alia - For those who did not attend the IETF meeting this time, could you point us= to summarization of what reorg changes were proposed and the what the outcome was? Any meeting notes (if ready) for the yesterday's meeting would also be appr= eciated. Thanks, himanshu --_000_40746B2300A8FC4AB04EE722A593182B76DAF352ONWVEXCHMB04cie_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Adrian/Alia –

 

For those who did not attend the IETF meeting this time, could you point= us to summarization of what reorg changes were proposed<= /i>

and the what the outcome was?

 

Any meeting notes (if r= eady) for the yesterday’s meeting would also be appreciated.

 

Thanks,=

himanshu

<= /div>= --_000_40746B2300A8FC4AB04EE722A593182B76DAF352ONWVEXCHMB04cie_-- From nobody Fri Jul 25 07:06:37 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC4BE1B2999 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 07:06:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fo24fyH6pdoI for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 07:06:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com [209.65.160.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 056861B295D for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 07:05:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unknown [144.160.229.24] (EHLO alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com) by nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-7.2.2-0) with ESMTP id 61462d35.2b1fc8cad940.4909998.00-2480.13704714.nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Fri, 25 Jul 2014 14:05:10 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 53d264165493229d-3580177dd393e0703fde70e3aa97748b5d35ff54 Received: from unknown [144.160.229.24] (EHLO alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com) by nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-7.2.2-0) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 20462d35.0.4909725.00-2290.13703965.nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Fri, 25 Jul 2014 14:04:51 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 53d264031c9b3884-c7903e8fde0ed956ea6481d3f1853beb993c19b4 Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6PE4sMu029610; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:04:54 -0400 Received: from mlpi408.sfdc.sbc.com (mlpi408.sfdc.sbc.com [130.9.128.240]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6PE4g2U029448 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:04:48 -0400 Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUBAC.ITServices.sbc.com (MISOUT7MSGHUBAC.itservices.sbc.com [130.9.129.147]) by mlpi408.sfdc.sbc.com (RSA Interceptor); Fri, 25 Jul 2014 14:04:30 GMT Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.9]) by MISOUT7MSGHUBAC.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.9.129.147]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:04:29 -0400 From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" To: "Shah, Himanshu" , Adrian Farrel , "Alia Atlas (akatlas@gmail.com)" Subject: RE: routing area reorg Thread-Topic: routing area reorg Thread-Index: Ac+oBBNXOEpuN4KfRQqGIfquvgFnOwADA59A Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 14:04:29 +0000 Message-ID: References: <40746B2300A8FC4AB04EE722A593182B76DAF352@ONWVEXCHMB04.ciena.com> In-Reply-To: <40746B2300A8FC4AB04EE722A593182B76DAF352@ONWVEXCHMB04.ciena.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.70.72.206] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C80CB90E64MISOUT7MSGUSRDE_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-AnalysisOut: [v=2.0 cv=Tf4hQ2sh c=1 sm=1 a=dhB6nF3YHL5t/Ixux6cINA==:17 a] X-AnalysisOut: [=ofMgfj31e3cA:10 a=EyDtT1SiYQYA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=zQP] X-AnalysisOut: [7CpKOAAAA:8 a=XIqpo32RAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=pGLkceISAA] X-AnalysisOut: [AA:8 a=-YTSBoktyEPP1aEiCJ4A:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=1w7khgY7] X-AnalysisOut: [68cA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=yMhMjlubAAAA] X-AnalysisOut: [:8 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=6rPbh_7zkraof5wPWXsA:9 a=gKO2Hq4RSVk] X-AnalysisOut: [A:10 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A:10 a=hTZeC7Yk6K0A:10 a=frz4AuCg-hUA:10] X-AnalysisOut: [ a=ZfpjhYiNyT7qYh-G:21] X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2014051901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.229.24] Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/9EhIFLEgaDlra4fTEnP3eETTHf4 Cc: "routing-discussion@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 14:06:25 -0000 --_000_F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C80CB90E64MISOUT7MSGUSRDE_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Himanshu, I'm hoping to have rough meeting notes available later today. The reorg is in the slide set for "The Routing Area Status": https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/90/materials.html (near the end) And the audio should be available. Deborah From: routing-discussion [mailto:routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org] On Be= half Of Shah, Himanshu Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 8:32 AM To: Adrian Farrel; Alia Atlas (akatlas@gmail.com) Cc: routing-discussion@ietf.org Subject: routing area reorg Hi Adrian/Alia - For those who did not attend the IETF meeting this time, could you point us= to summarization of what reorg changes were proposed and the what the outcome was? Any meeting notes (if ready) for the yesterday's meeting would also be appr= eciated. Thanks, himanshu --_000_F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C80CB90E64MISOUT7MSGUSRDE_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Himanshu,

 

I’m hoping to ha= ve rough meeting notes available later today.

 

The reorg is in the sl= ide set for “The Routing Area Status”:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/m= eeting/90/materials.html

(near the end)

 

And the audio should b= e available.

 

Deborah

 

 

 

From: routing-= discussion [mailto:routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Shah, Himanshu
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 8:32 AM
To: Adrian Farrel; Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> (akatlas@gma= il.com)
Cc: routing-discussion@ietf.org
Subject: routing area reorg

 

Hi Adrian/Alia &#= 8211;

 =

For those who did= not attend the IETF meeting this time, could you point us to summarization= of what reorg changes were proposed

and the what the = outcome was?

 =

Any meeting notes= (if ready) for the yesterday’s meeting would also be appreciated.

 =

Thanks,

himanshu

--_000_F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C80CB90E64MISOUT7MSGUSRDE_-- From nobody Fri Jul 25 10:22:41 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42EB01A03F1 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:22:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9eRsHbhxPAMu for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:22:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qg0-x233.google.com (mail-qg0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD8AC1A037A for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:22:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qg0-f51.google.com with SMTP id a108so5428221qge.10 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:22:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=0Chh9iLrPMu9unoyElcs9INbnZDuXZ1ZBGU0hG0cssI=; b=oAhFNFtrVMk5g74trpk/SpqnR7iinYU0voK9GzoSnmhQSEPoIbMKg3EWL3hQL9KkbS iWCmCXRq+nfy7lcreXenw5b/uSs7HKJ4hzXVZlyu88hKPf5TixXt9nckItnOZ7/haT8V fYsiSy/7b6yX0kL7fYaNBfkMrxa19VZkpiL4AK2QXPb4Hae0QxoE6AqbHe/1zifEBm9/ Oy50RaSxmBBF0sZOH2H4Ci0+HGX96QtVZ2LpPDN9kU5kypGOhNkYq7JVt45oHGlm5W/4 T0VbdaywPrKI2w0duV5v7jCagPCuktwb2hQeNm/vzKKKAqU3OAlWgEVb1XVmaTLeskJ7 RZRA== X-Received: by 10.140.107.131 with SMTP id h3mr28824832qgf.83.1406308958009; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:22:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.140.16.22 with HTTP; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:22:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <40746B2300A8FC4AB04EE722A593182B76DAF352@ONWVEXCHMB04.ciena.com> From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 13:22:17 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: routing area reorg To: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a7f76e3010b04ff07d14f Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/12l0hJvImJdx8pqEqhqhsxUWKWc Cc: Adrian Farrel , "routing-discussion@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 17:22:40 -0000 --001a113a7f76e3010b04ff07d14f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Himanshu, The direct URL is http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-rtgarea-3.ppt ,and the reorg discussion starts on page 26. Cheers, Andy On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:04 AM, BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A wrote: > Hi Himanshu, > > > > I=E2=80=99m hoping to have rough meeting notes available later today. > > > > The reorg is in the slide set for =E2=80=9CThe Routing Area Status=E2=80= =9D: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/90/materials.html > > (near the end) > > > > And the audio should be available. > > > > Deborah > > > > > > > > *From:* routing-discussion [mailto:routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org] *= On > Behalf Of *Shah, Himanshu > *Sent:* Friday, July 25, 2014 8:32 AM > *To:* Adrian Farrel; Alia Atlas (akatlas@gmail.com) > *Cc:* routing-discussion@ietf.org > *Subject:* routing area reorg > > > > *Hi Adrian/Alia =E2=80=93* > > > > *For those who did not attend the IETF meeting this time, could you point > us to summarization of what reorg changes were proposed* > > *and the what the outcome was?* > > > > *Any meeting notes (if ready) for the yesterday=E2=80=99s meeting would a= lso be > appreciated.* > > > > *Thanks,* > > *himanshu* > > _______________________________________________ > routing-discussion mailing list > routing-discussion@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion > > --001a113a7f76e3010b04ff07d14f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Himanshu,

The direct URL is=C2=A0=C2=A0http://= www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-rtgarea-3.ppt=C2=A0,and th= e reorg discussion starts on page 26.

Cheers,
Andy


On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:04 AM, = BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <db3546@att.com> wrote:

Hi Himanshu,=

=C2=A0

I=E2=80=99m hoping to = have rough meeting notes available later today.

=C2=A0

The reorg is in the sl= ide set for =E2=80=9CThe Routing Area Status=E2=80=9D:=

https://data= tracker.ietf.org/meeting/90/materials.html

(near the end)<= u>

=C2=A0

And the audio should b= e available.

=C2=A0

Deborah<= /span>

=C2=A0

=C2=A0

=C2=A0

From: routing-= discussion [mailto:routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Shah, Himanshu
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 8:32 AM
To: Adrian Farrel; Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> (akatlas@gmail.com)
Cc: routing-discussion@ietf.org
Subject: routing area reorg

=C2=A0

Hi Adrian/Alia = =E2=80=93

=C2=A0<= /u>

For those who did= not attend the IETF meeting this time, could you point us to summarization= of what reorg changes were proposed

and the what the = outcome was?

=C2=A0<= /u>

Any meeting notes= (if ready) for the yesterday=E2=80=99s meeting would also be appreciated.<= u>

=C2=A0<= /u>

Thanks,=

himanshu


_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
routing-discussion@ietf.org<= /a>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion

--001a113a7f76e3010b04ff07d14f-- From nobody Fri Jul 25 11:57:54 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAFD11A0309 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 11:57:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hyOJ7l4qdaRg for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 11:57:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78A0C1A024F for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 11:57:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s6PIvkaF030946 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 19:57:46 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dhcp-b3a5.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.179.165]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s6PIviAE030924 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 19:57:45 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: Summary of RTG Tuning as presented to IESG/IAB Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 19:57:47 +0100 Message-ID: <067e01cfa83a$54cca120$fe65e360$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac+oOk6jjiFJ0O1OS/uwTrsklE6nHA== Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-20840.001 X-TM-AS-Result: No--6.626-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--6.626-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: io0g/gRLhgsTSpw9+3gvP1u4M/xm4KZeyeUl7aCTy8ibaqf1L9+tlBFl wJhVcSVO/kpMT8LeG/RWfI52Nh82SqRcnmyiScEKgOqr/r0d+CxA8I/PJy4EU8lVHSmLXGNcnKi VfRi1BcRQlpkcw9bo/KADDsD3z9tYLSrAO4jtrqG4jAucHcCqnaX1XMd/SqvuLzUzuO6zeIkkNw X5vhc72henXiQa20kQtF3RbBlJV01ccQ8eam5EfTl/1fD/Gopd2K+lN2ZUJHbEQdG7H66TyMdRT 5TQAJnAZReqv4Y41GhyyHf0tXGGZQ0JkWiKNNyUQXkL97TdgOOeqD9WtJkSIw== Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/MHfL3PGER7NzL8jHIupM6QssSzg X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 18:57:50 -0000 Hi, I just presented a summary of our discussions about tuning the work-split in Routing to bring the IESG and IAB up to speed. Here it is for your information. Do please continue to discuss and share this as you see fit. Thanks for all the input received so far. Remember that until these changes are implemented, all work should continue as currently. Adrian ==== Wide discussion and some sort of general agreementishiness - Mailing lists - Chairs/Directorate lunch - Area meeting - Corridors ADs' opinions and proposals were modified by discussion All current work remains in the Area All WG I-Ds will remain as WG I-Ds No new work at the moment Same number of WGs in the Area 12 WGs completely unchanged 2 minor tweaks - PIM has more multicast oversight - RTGWG has stronger Dispatch element Merge and shuffle to achieve 6 WGs - BGP Enabled ServiceS (L3VPN, L2VPN, NVO3) BESS - Pseudowire- and LDP-enabled Services (L2VPN, PWE3) PALS - Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling (MPLS, CCAMP) TEAS - CCAMP (CCAMP minus TEAS) - MPLS (MPLS minus TEAS) - NVO3 (NVO3 minus BESS) Plan of action - Starting to think about chairs now - Starting to draft charters now - Plan to have changes up and running before IETF-91 From nobody Sat Jul 26 02:48:19 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A50301A0411 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 02:48:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.502 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X7tJ9NTwgPcA for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 02:48:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 267FF1A0415 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 02:48:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2340; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1406368093; x=1407577693; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=njSXyHQ16mjnWyhl4V8if+jNht61GYhPV5EQ0uU8ufY=; b=E8T+kHo4PEnHJRTGuCaIeR2koqiOjvIOP1MIvgkfwQ7vZZ4FzVl+oVVE z0dzfE8HyO6O8HCXfSqAstpOnk1OhY6yEKVcoPCRk/MfYJ5D+gu2y/2Wm M79M/hBvhJkMniWwlMvSw5N2t834q1jxlxnxKxnVbcU4jrz3cKWmQ14VL g=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhQFAG1401OtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABZgw5SV8tRCoZyUwGBChZ3hAMBAQEEAQEBNzQLBQsLEQEDAQEBCR4HDwUNBh8DBg4TCYglAxENtm8NhxsXjR6CLQeESQWKcY5VggIBjimGIoNpHS8B X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,735,1400025600"; d="scan'208";a="64215725" Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Jul 2014 09:48:12 +0000 Received: from mcast-linux1.cisco.com (mcast-linux1.cisco.com [172.27.244.121]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6Q9mBAN025107 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 26 Jul 2014 09:48:12 GMT Received: from mcast-linux1.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by mcast-linux1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s6Q9mAOF011165; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 02:48:10 -0700 Received: (from eckert@localhost) by mcast-linux1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id s6Q9m9YQ011164; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 02:48:09 -0700 Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 02:48:09 -0700 From: Toerless Eckert To: "Andrew G. Malis" Subject: Re: routing area reorg Message-ID: <20140726094809.GL24330@cisco.com> References: <40746B2300A8FC4AB04EE722A593182B76DAF352@ONWVEXCHMB04.ciena.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/NI6guIr0sLvhovy_y0UvF-w6rBo Cc: Adrian Farrel , "routing-discussion@ietf.org" , "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 09:48:17 -0000 Great slide deck from the area (kudos A&A), URL is wrong though: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-rtgarea-4.ppt Also: The 90th routing area web page looks more like a vacation statement: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/rtg.html I am surprised to learn that the PIM meeting i attended was actually a non-meeting ;-) Cheers Toerless On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 01:22:17PM -0400, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > Himanshu, > > The direct URL is > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-rtgarea-3.ppt ,and the > reorg discussion starts on page 26. > > Cheers, > Andy > > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:04 AM, BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A > wrote: > > > Hi Himanshu, > > > > > > > > I???m hoping to have rough meeting notes available later today. > > > > > > > > The reorg is in the slide set for ???The Routing Area Status???: > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/90/materials.html > > > > (near the end) > > > > > > > > And the audio should be available. > > > > > > > > Deborah > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* routing-discussion [mailto:routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org] *On > > Behalf Of *Shah, Himanshu > > *Sent:* Friday, July 25, 2014 8:32 AM > > *To:* Adrian Farrel; Alia Atlas (akatlas@gmail.com) > > *Cc:* routing-discussion@ietf.org > > *Subject:* routing area reorg > > > > > > > > *Hi Adrian/Alia ???* > > > > > > > > *For those who did not attend the IETF meeting this time, could you point > > us to summarization of what reorg changes were proposed* > > > > *and the what the outcome was?* > > > > > > > > *Any meeting notes (if ready) for the yesterday???s meeting would also be > > appreciated.* > > > > > > > > *Thanks,* > > > > *himanshu* > > > > _______________________________________________ > > routing-discussion mailing list > > routing-discussion@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion > > > > > _______________________________________________ > routing-discussion mailing list > routing-discussion@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion -- --- Toerless Eckert, eckert@cisco.com Cisco NSSTG Systems & Technology Architecture SDN: Let me play with the network, mommy! From nobody Sat Jul 26 06:15:05 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C1EF1B2804 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 06:15:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OWalTuG6y1dg for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 06:15:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33C311B27F5 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 06:14:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s6QDEoJu024431; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 14:14:50 +0100 Received: from 950129200 ([207.164.179.98]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s6QDEmiQ024419 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 26 Jul 2014 14:14:49 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Toerless Eckert'" , "'Andrew G. Malis'" References: <40746B2300A8FC4AB04EE722A593182B76DAF352@ONWVEXCHMB04.ciena.com> <20140726094809.GL24330@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <20140726094809.GL24330@cisco.com> Subject: RE: routing area reorg Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 14:14:51 +0100 Message-ID: <073601cfa8d3$9686dba0$c39492e0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQIS2Mh9Su771f+WpxC39PRTW9jjzAKpEUfqAcf9lKEBT2X4MJr98AcA Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-20840.007 X-TM-AS-Result: No--9.427-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--9.427-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: VPleTT1nwdQ4HKI/yaqRm+YAh37ZsBDC8uTf6U4SUIP2Jzqp3fkNEw9W gBEShsusnK6NH0kJeVr9bWkVIFMUGniv5sCP+8t5BEfU2vugRF3f6KKBAMvNL+QydRUvl3QTIL+ j00cxUVpkoXeRms30URmQ64USgvO0ODMRRevE3k+A6qv+vR34LCqeRvi0KNXOTsMKchXIi2XKPB DklcIpeeLzNWBegCW2XC3N7C7Yzre25maLCP+Wct0H8LFZNFG7hqz53n/yPnpMf5qbWiWdzhAk1 Ay8/38G5kDfhA0Twc8ZbUg0m3Dxh1bhgBx8Hi7b Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/M8qauVV7YrHccV8lMzdbm4LPOOY Cc: routing-discussion@ietf.org, "'BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A'" X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 13:15:02 -0000 > Great slide deck from the area (kudos A&A), Thanks Toerless. Appreciate the praise. > URL is wrong though: > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-rtgarea-4.ppt Not Andy's fault. I updated the deck to pull in status slides from some chairs who only got them to us just before the meeting. > Also: The 90th routing area web page looks more like a vacation statement: > > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/rtg.html > > I am surprised to learn that the PIM meeting i attended > was actually a non-meeting ;-) Two things here... 1. The proceedings take the Secretariat a while to put together. They have to collect the slides and convert them to PDF, they have to collect the minutes, and they have to build the package. Until then (about one month), you should follow meetings materials links (e.g. through the agenda). 2. PIM is a vacation. Adrian From nobody Mon Jul 28 04:05:16 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7567A1A03F8 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 04:05:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aK4Mm2kUwJU9 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 04:05:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C06D21A03EF for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 04:05:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s6SB4vCP000608 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:04:59 +0100 Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23E3738CA3 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 14:29:51 +0100 (BST) Received: from 950129200 ([207.164.179.98]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s6QDTf3G018669 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 14:29:47 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: Managing change Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 14:29:44 +0100 Message-ID: <073e01cfa8d5$ad4d04c0$07e70e40$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac+o1WjpTgF2ERcCTGWMZknur9GZlg== Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-20840.002 X-TM-AS-Result: No--10.614-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--10.614-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: VTwR9b2vjtVEKOCB2yjJKxMMmcrjEONdF4q8hdmZvAgHUwyyrYK8qga9 67Ufdcgs5JHWZCIF1zhRK9dnxWTW0HcEU6G3sqWRjoyKzEmtrEfqDwjZ8PD9MsXt25YNeIUSz5z AIum8OcSTTNSSVd327sinp2Tgxl+Ide5K/2bhGy6sgaPSWrovRnvLTlv21x3wDO+DX+rUwfaj/t vYAGIR0u8EQ/zHQOss2T8UrKyVRKYLazoQyrpm0o1nuRzhSr7j/8CuA+b/YYShl1Pc+HQaWgOR3 tZA0vji4vM1YF6AJbZcLc3sLtjOt+TCMddcL/gjOwBXM346/+y1sBCT2fmcdzvjN1RIgJI2o8nl T6du0mRZIb5oc7ZfVDmspD3MMAwg Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/fcTYu-knoENtYQvnSIhZsiQFJKY X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 11:05:12 -0000 As I sit at the airport on my way home (a loose term used to describe somewhere I wash clothes in between flights) I first want to thank you all for the constructive debate about the ADs' proposals/plans for tuning the work-distribution in the Area. I hope that, on reflection, you do not feel that our suggestions are too radical or extreme, and I want to reiterate that we are not eliminating any work from the Area. We plan to allow a little time for this to settle and to let all of you (but perhaps especially those who were not physically present) to send further comments by email. Change can be disruptive, and it is important to make this change as painless as possible. It would be highly ironic if changes intended to streamline work, make delivery more timely, and increase quality had the opposite effects. So please note that until the changes come into effect, everything goes on as normal. There is absolutely no reason for any work to be delayed or deferred pending the changes. Over the next few weeks, Alia and I will make a first stab at: 1. Drafting new charters 2. Indicating which WGs existing WG I-Ds would go to 3. Discussing with chairs what WGs they might chair going forward. We hope to keep you all in the loop, but will strive to not be a distraction from "work as usual". Thanks, Adrian From nobody Mon Jul 28 18:12:25 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EF701A0352; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 18:12:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yap5J0e_GimM; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 18:12:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com [209.65.160.93]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C8A51A031F; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 18:12:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unknown [144.160.229.24] (EHLO alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com) by nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-7.2.2-0) with ESMTP id 4f4f6d35.2b3bd0626940.3959111.00-2435.10215835.nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Tue, 29 Jul 2014 01:12:20 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 53d6f4f449dad7d9-f99dfd47e5b9435855d62e8b0e9da13edc8eafe7 Received: from unknown [144.160.229.24] (EHLO alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com) by nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-7.2.2-0) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 9e4f6d35.0.3959086.00-2374.10215730.nbfkord-smmo07.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Tue, 29 Jul 2014 01:12:11 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 53d6f4eb19f2b363-e4bb5129c21137fb348dca241fb6c7fcca3c3b82 Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6T1C8r5010936; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 21:12:08 -0400 Received: from mlpi407.sfdc.sbc.com (mlpi407.sfdc.sbc.com [130.9.128.239]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6T1C1DG010915 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 28 Jul 2014 21:12:02 -0400 Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUBAB.ITServices.sbc.com (MISOUT7MSGHUBAB.itservices.sbc.com [130.9.129.146]) by mlpi407.sfdc.sbc.com (RSA Interceptor); Tue, 29 Jul 2014 01:11:48 GMT Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.173]) by MISOUT7MSGHUBAB.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.9.129.146]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 21:11:48 -0400 From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" To: "routing-discussion@ietf.org" , "rtg-chairs@ietf.org" Subject: IETF 90 RA Draft Meeting Minutes Thread-Topic: IETF 90 RA Draft Meeting Minutes Thread-Index: Ac+qyg1pGsZuYg6kRxGyZL/BsfrzDQ== Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 01:11:47 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.70.21.214] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C80CB99D0EMISOUT7MSGUSRDE_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-AnalysisOut: [v=2.0 cv=Y+xPRGiN c=1 sm=1 a=dhB6nF3YHL5t/Ixux6cINA==:17 a] X-AnalysisOut: [=Xs2_dSXvZjMA:10 a=ofMgfj31e3cA:10 a=Nyhsu6wEJTYA:10 a=BLc] X-AnalysisOut: [eEmwcHowA:10 a=zQP7CpKOAAAA:8 a=XIqpo32RAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUA] X-AnalysisOut: [AAA:8 a=N7WDcMROkXm0LAovOf4A:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=jyyz9Gm] X-AnalysisOut: [1NDcA:10 a=amghFjPXySEA:10 a=NRQLjGEkmtYA:10 a=w-3X8ezXNoq] X-AnalysisOut: [o6RgmRTAA:9 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=frz4AuCg-hUA:10 a=ZlEmVHaO] X-AnalysisOut: [8y53qlPW:21] X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2014051901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.229.24] Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/3Gxa2FDq-8j5CW569pqMTs8SWGo Cc: Adrian Farrel X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 01:12:24 -0000 --_000_F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C80CB99D0EMISOUT7MSGUSRDE_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Here's rough draft minutes. Please send any comments that you want added. http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/minutes/minutes-90-rtgarea Thanks, Deborah and Jon --_000_F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C80CB99D0EMISOUT7MSGUSRDE_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,
 
Here’s rough draft minutes. Please send any comments that you wa= nt added.
 
Thanks,
Deborah and Jon
 
 --_000_F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C80CB99D0EMISOUT7MSGUSRDE_--