* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Rtgwg Status Pages

Routing Area Working Group (Active WG)
Rtg Area: Alia Atlas, Alvaro Retana, Deborah Brungard | 2004-Feb-19 —  
Chairs
 
 


2017-11-03 charter

Routing Area Working Group (rtgwg)
----------------------------------

 Charter

 Current Status: Active

 Chairs:
     Chris Bowers <chrisbowers.ietf@gmail.com>
     Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>

 Routing Area Directors:
     Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
     Deborah Brungard <db3546@att.com>
     Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>

 Routing Area Advisor:
     Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>

 Secretary:
     Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com>

 Mailing Lists:
     General Discussion: rtgwg@ietf.org
     To Subscribe:       https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
     Archive:            https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/

Description of Working Group:

  The Routing Area working group (RTGWG) is chartered to provide a
  venue to discuss, evaluate, support and develop proposals for
  new work in the Routing Area and may work on specific small topics
  that do not fit with an existing working group.

  Options for handling new work include:

  - Directing the work to an existing WG (including RTGWG)
  - Developing a proposal for a BoF.
  - Developing a charter and establishing consensus for a new WG.  This
  option will primarily be used with fairly mature and/or well-defined efforts.
  - Careful evaluation, leading to deferring or rejecting work.

  It is expected that the proposals for new work will only include items which
  are not aligned with the work of other WGs or that may span multiple WGs.
  The Area Directors and WG Chairs can provide guidance if there is any
  doubt whether a topic should be discussed in RTGWG.

  A major objective of the RTGWG is to provide timely, clear
  dispositions of new efforts. Where there is consensus to take
  on new work, the WG will strive to quickly find a home for it.
  Reconsideration of proposals which have failed to gather consensus
  will be prioritized behind proposals for new work which have not
  yet been considered. In general, requests for reconsideration
  should only be made once a proposal has been significantly
  revised.

  If RTGWG decides that a particular topic should be addressed by
  a new WG, the chairs will recommend the work to the Routing ADs
  with a summary of the evaluation.  The Routing ADs may then choose
  to follow the normal IETF chartering process (potential BoF, IETF-wide
  review of the proposed charter, etc.).

  Guiding principles for evaluation of new work by RTGWG will include:

     1. Providing a clear problem statement for proposed new work.

     2. Prioritizing new efforts to manage the trade-offs between urgency,
         interest, and available resources in the Routing Area.

     3. Looking for commonalities among ongoing efforts.
         Such commonalities may indicate the need to develop more
         general, reusable solutions.

     4. Ensuring appropriate cross-WG and cross-area review.

     5. Protecting the architectural integrity of the protocols developed
         in the Routing Area and ensuring that work has significant applicability.

  RTGWG may also work on specific small topics that do not fit with an existing working group. An example of a small topic is a draft that might otherwise be AD-sponsored but which could benefit from the review and consensus that RTGWG can provide.

  RTGWG may work on larger topics, but must be explicitly rechartered to add the topic.  The specific larger topics that RTGWG is currently chartered to work on:

    * Enhancements to hop-by-hop distributed
      routing (e.g., multicast, LDP-MPLS, unicast routing) related to
      fast-reroute and loop-free convergence. A specific goal of
      fast-reroute mechanisms is to provide up to complete coverage when
      the potential failure would not partition the network. All work in
      this area should be specifically evaluated by the WG in terms of
      practicality and applicability to deployed networks.

    * Routing-related YANG models that are not appropriate for other RTG working
      groups.

  The working group milestones will be updated as needed to reflect the
  proposals currently being worked on and the target dates for their
  completion.

Goals and Milestones:
  Nov 2014 - Submit Remote LFA (link protection) for publication as Proposed Standard
  Mar 2015 - Submit Composite-Link Requirements to IESG for publication as Informational
  Mar 2015 - Submit initial Internet Draft on Multicast IP Fast Reroute Architecture
  Mar 2015 - Submit Composite-Link Framework to IESG for publication as Informational
  Jul 2015 - Submit specification on Advanced IP Fast Reroute mechanism to IESG for publication as Proposed Standard
  Jul 2015 - Submit Document on Operational Experience of using BGP in a Data Center for publication as Informational
  Jul 2015 - Submit Operational Management for LFA for publication as Proposed Standard
  Jul 2015 - Submit Remote LFA (node protection) for publication as Proposed Standard
  Nov 2015 - Submit MIB for IP Fast-Reroute for publication as Proposed Standard


All charter page changes, including changes to draft-list, rfc-list and milestones:



Generated from PyHt script /wg/rtgwg/charters.pyht Latest update: 24 Oct 2012 16:51 GMT -