IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-06

Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com> Fri, 05 May 2017 22:58 UTC

Return-Path: <gjshep@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bier@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1695129413 for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 May 2017 15:58:09 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 qWAQ62P-4vbC for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 May 2017 15:58:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x229.google.com (mail-qt0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 527CD120227 for <bier@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 May 2017 15:58:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x229.google.com with SMTP id j29so16597415qtj.1 for <bier@ietf.org>; Fri, 05 May 2017 15:58:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=C9imrVmfBqXCypmZJlaOwXMCGteGTJSsG7O5MgZzWxM=; b=uIfljc3SARieJunULTSBQtfHjpYosyie/wAs+WaUfG+uGfMWnO1y9w/dJbj0+LGMPf xwfC4VyQuAX3TdPaL6lSTe4Jv7A8cIqxUwpVT8K16zZAR8FMLI9h8WlFt/Ch7LPMBXdF Tmrp9KyETNqh7g6TUHg1IFBhlTS0M014TXvzllJLZXt2krp6N8bJFimSDJIjq4xHVdeC sYwBd3F9CVl6AlLWzGHr+47ZgKFNKwRJ1asSZo/5KHmQcujqdBh2jjH1eO9GwY6EZj/v jpGViRtqZ8hiP3FphmW7XmfU8+WLZDCIPkPEWBEkv0/LkhPafYE9UnE7LqDHHFhh7aTa gClQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:reply-to:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=C9imrVmfBqXCypmZJlaOwXMCGteGTJSsG7O5MgZzWxM=; b=Tm8p9Tg3vozh/5OR2UKbmE3WPdYN8N5tmXL5eN+fy77Xq3OmhP6aroEVmr2XdS7V8r sshNbvgdeWkYGwLgyZsb6KeST8lS2UzcMedt2KP6q/pV0WZEjo4OWSC2YrU2iNsscEyx 1MhIA11kQI/neexCLd7t/pKvaiiHbFkGOzmNGoqABlVLZkinGY2B4qH3FZ6bdTfIhz/S T6W+oxIHMfbrDIfAWvLb8uokTEr7Cls42KD3kKYp3LGofd2P1QMRJQy2fJs83p02T4HD Ai64zpGyyxykX5AR/F4ogtPFTehf7qHDUpGP1wJeLUMdRBm6AcJOVstQZwIgp0d/kiMo hx+Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/729WUcUQUcNFBYBHH2J6rJ00NrqOdyv87cmBsGeB2jfJDOGp/G nNjFABi9VGmfxgZtlsaTylyOvWgAIdj+
X-Received: by 10.200.38.21 with SMTP id u21mr42157202qtu.96.1494025087430; Fri, 05 May 2017 15:58:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.200.42.101 with HTTP; Fri, 5 May 2017 15:58:07 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: gjshep@gmail.com
From: Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 15:58:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CABFReBq1xG4+qjS5roHDSgBaSSMd6dDA0au_FgKCKm9a0pSvOA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "bier@ietf.org" <bier@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c036569f33c6054eced257"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/Vb9fyw-AqCSZzbS4c_n6pqq1t70>
Subject: [Bier] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-06
X-BeenThere: bier@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "\"Bit Indexed Explicit Replication discussion list\"" <bier.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bier>, <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bier/>
List-Post: <mailto:bier@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier>, <mailto:bier-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 22:58:10 -0000

At WG meeting, IETF97 in Chicago, we decided to move forward to WGLC for
some of our docs. We learned that even once published the IESG has a
process to change the track of the RFC if the WG makes the case to move the
work from Informational to Standards track. The feedback from operators is
that RFC status was more important than track, and we won't be able to meet
our charter requirements to change track without deployment experience and
operator support.

This email starts a two week timer for feedback on the draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation/

Please read and respond do this thread. EOWGLC - 20/5/17

Thank you,
Chairs

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email