Subject: grow: notes on the RPO DT and draft-meyer-rpo-00.txt

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:43:59 -0800

Folks,

        The RPO effort is (somewhat) rapidly evolving. Here are
        my plans, as they stand at the moment:

        (i).    Rename the Effort/DT: RPO -> RIFT

                Operational Concerns and Considerations for
                Routing Protocol Design -- Risk, Interference,
                and Fit (RIFT)    

                The reason for the rename is that many people
                felt that using the term "Overload" was not only
                negative, but assumed that routing protocols were
                indeed "overloaded". Clearly, this was not the
                intention of the document, so for these reasons
                it seems to make some sense to rename it.

        (ii).   publish draft-ietf-grow-rift-00.txt

                This means moving the DT from the routing area
                into GROW. I am waiting on IESG acceptance of the
                new GROW charter/milestones before formally
                making this move. However, if you are interested
                in looking at the document before then, please
                see     

                  http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/draft-ietf-grow-rift-00.txt

                As always, comments greatly appreciated (both on
                the draft and on the plan to move the DT into
                GROW). 

        (iii).  Announce on [email-masked] and
                [email-masked]

                Again, waiting on IESG decision before this. I
                will post an update to both lists as soon as I
                get an update from the IESG.

        Questions or comments on the plan or the draft?

        Dave

____________________________________________________________
Web Archive:     http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 01:14:18 -0800

Dave,

>                 the draft and on the plan to move the DT into

Do we have a consensus of the GROW WG to accept it as a GROW WG document ?

Yakov.

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:05:00 -0800

Yakov,

>> Do we have a consensus of the GROW WG to accept it as a GROW WG document ?

	According to my notes for the last WG session, yes.
	However, there was clearly mass confusion after the
	last meeting (and add to that the fact that although the
	AD said that the document was in scope, the WG in the
	process of being rechartered; the point being that it is
	really hard state authoritatively what will be in
	scope). Given all of that, I think it is worthwhile
	asking the WG again if we have consensus that this should
	be a WG document. 

	Comments?    

	Dave

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:43:09 -0800

Dave,

> 	asking the WG again if we have consensus that this should

I certainly agree with your suggestion to ask the WG again if there
is a consensus.

Yakov.