RFC 3272bis Design Team Status and Apologies

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
QuEST Forum 2006 Requirements Handbook 4.0 Overview.
Advertisements

Problem Statement and Architecture for Information Exchange Between Interconnected Traffic Engineered Networks draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange-03.txt.
Task Analysis EDU 553 – Principles of Instructional Design Dr. Steve Broskoske.
Routing Area Working Group Reshuffle IETF/IEEE Leadership Meeting Newark, September 29, 2014 Adrian Farrel – Routing AD
SIP working group status Keith Drage, Dean Willis.
Update on the Internet Research Task Force Aaron Falk IRTF Chair IETF-72 – Dublin.
Communications support for the Vodafone EMF community Pre-read for EMF Leader Workshop, 8 April 2008 Dianne Sullivan & Ros Young.
What makes for a quality RFC? An invited talk to the MPLS WG Adrian Farrel IETF-89 London, March 2014.
Strengthening Partnerships: Shaping the Future Portland, OR June 6 th – 10 th, 2004 Planning for Success Implementing the California EDRS.
WG Document Status 192nd IETF TEAS Working Group.
SIP INFO Event Framework (draft-kaplan-sip-info-events-00) Hadriel Kaplan Christer Holmberg 70th IETF, Vancouver, Canada.
OSPF WG – IETF 67 OSPF WG Document Status or “You can bring a Horse to Water …” Rohit Dube/Consultant Acee Lindem/Cisco Systems.
OSPF WG – IETF 66 OSPF WG Document Status Rohit Dube/Consultant Acee Lindem/Cisco Systems.
1 Yet Another Mail Working Group IETF 78 July 29, 2010.
File: /ram/wgchairs.sxi Date: 7 January, 2016 Slide 1 Process and Tools (PROTO) Team General Area Meeting IETF59, Seoul, Korea -- March 2004
Management Considerations Sharon Chisholm
Feedback + Services Justine, Katie, Jude and Angela.
1 MPLS Architectural Considerations for a Transport Profile ITU-T - IETF Joint Working Team Dave Ward, Malcolm Betts, ed. April 16, 2008.
70th IETF Vancouver, December 2007 CCAMP Working Group Status Chairs: Deborah Brungard : Adrian Farrel :
66th IETF, Montreal, July 2006 PCE Working Group Meeting IETF-66, July 2006, Montreal A Backward Recursive PCE-based Computation (BRPC) procedure to compute.
IDR WG Document Status Update Sue Hares, Yakov Rekhter November 2005.
68th IETF, Prague, March 2007 Requirements for Manageability Sections in PCE Working Group Drafts draft-ietf-pce-manageability-requirements-01.txt Adrian.
Note Well Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as all or part of an IETF Internet-Draft or RFC and any statement made.
STIR Secure Telephone Identity Revisited
Network Slicing (netslicing) BoF
Luyuan Fang Michael Behringer Ross Callon Jean-Luis Le Roux
CRAM Quarterly Meeting, December 2016
Daniel King, Old Dog Consulting Adrian Farrel, Old Dog Consulting
NETCONF WG IETF 93 - Prague, Czech Republic THURSDAY, July 23, 2015
Architecture for Scheduled Use of Resources draft-zhuang-teas-scheduled-resources-00 Yan Zhuang Qin Wu
Curriculum Change: SUPPORTING OTHERS
Note Well Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as all or part of an IETF Internet-Draft or RFC and any statement made.
Daniel King, Old Dog Consulting Adrian Farrel, Old Dog Consulting
Igor Bryskin - Adrian Farrel -
The need for better security considerations guidance
IP Telephony (iptel) IETF 56
OSPF Extensions for ASON Routing draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-03.txt IETF67 - Prague - Mar’07 Dimitri.
Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services (PALS) WG Status IETF-93 Prague
Good talks – some hints Henning Schulzrinne
TEAS Working Group IETF 99 - Prague Online Agenda and Slide:
2002/9/3 Ruri Hiromi (JPNIC IP Committee/Intec NetCore, Inc.)
Balazs Lengyel, Ericsson
Chapter 2 Software Processes
Technical Committee 3 INFORMATION STRUCTURES, DOCUMENTATION AND GRAPHICAL SYMBOLS.
Migration-Issues-xx Where it’s been and might be going
Working Group Re-charter Draft Charter Reference Materials
A Unified Approach to IP Segment Routing
WG Document Status Compiled By: Matt Hartley, Lou Berger, Vishnu Pavan Beeram IETF 99 - TEAS Working Group.
Action Item Start of IEEE 802 Mar 2017 Plenary
WG Document Status Compiled By: Lou Berger, Vishnu Pavan Beeram
2.1 Organizing for the Journey Ahead
OSPF WG Status IETF 98, Chicago
Multi-server Namespace in NFSv4.x Previous and Pending Updates
Action Item Start of IEEE 802 Mar 2017 Plenary
Word 2007 – Tips and Techniques
Path Computation Element WG Status
Report of the Technical Subcommittee
IETF 103 – Bangkok November 2018
TEAS Working Group: IETF Montreal
Handling YANG Revisions – Discussion Kickoff
WG Document Status Compiled By: Matt Hartley, Lou Berger, Vishnu Pavan Beeram IETF TEAS Working Group.
TEAS Working Group IETF Prague
RFC 793bis Wes Eddy
TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions (TCPM) Working Group
IETF-104 (Prague) DHC WG Next steps
DetNet Data Plane Solutions draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-ip-02  draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls-02  Bala’zs Varga, Jouni Korhonen, Janos Farkas, Lou Berger,
TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions (TCPM) Working Group Status
EVPN control plane for Geneve draft-boutros-bess-evpn-geneve-03
IETF 87 DHC WG Berlin, Germany Thursday, 1 August, 2013
OSPF WG Status IETF 80, Prague CZ
Presentation transcript:

RFC 3272bis Design Team Status and Apologies Adrian Farrel (adrian@olddog.co.uk) IETF-104, Montreal, Canada : July, 2019

What Are We Supposed to be Doing? RFC 3272 was published in 2002 “Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic Engineering” Product of the TEWG in 2001 Since then TE technologies and concepts within the Internet have become commonplace The mechanisms have developed and broadened Recent discussion of the term "TE" in a number of Working Groups Chiefly in the Routing Area Definitions are not adequate for today’s world The many references in RFC 3272 are somewhat out-of-date There are many new references especially within the IETF Therefore, we will attempt to revise RFC 3272

What Were We Chartered to Do This Design Team’s objective to update RFC 3272 by making a full revision (draft-dt-teas-rfc3272bis) that strengthens existing definitions, introduces new definitions where needed, brings the work up-to-date with current best practices, and includes (via appropriate references) the latest and on-going work in the IETF. The DT will provide regular updates and reports to the TEAS working group.  It will present an update on their status and plans at IETF 104 (Prague) and an initial DT draft in time for discussion at IETF 105 (Montreal). Once the draft is accepted as a working group document, it will progress per TEAS working group normal process.

What Have We Done? (Not a lot) We met as a team (in Prague) to decide on how we would work and how we would chop up the work We converted the current RFC to kramdown We created a github venue and put the markdown there A few of the team started to make (small) changes in github

Did We Get Stuck? Yes Result Old Dog failing to learn new tricks Too many people means “someone else” will do the work Our lives are just too busy Our tooling was not conducive to driving the work Result No draft posted No draft close to ready to be posted

What to Do? Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Reboot Kick the team into action as we are Option 2 Rebirth Try some new techniques with the current team Option 3 Replace Change some or all of the team Option 4 Resign Give up on the whole idea