[Bier] 答复: Re: WGLC draft-ietf-bier-architecture-05
<hu.fangwei@zte.com.cn> Tue, 09 May 2017 01:27 UTC
Return-Path: <hu.fangwei@zte.com.cn>
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 BB9CE126C83 for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 May 2017 18:27:51 -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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 nvCqixcmtFkL for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 May 2017 18:27:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73FE61293E9 for <bier@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 May 2017 18:27:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-scanvirus: By SEG_CYREN AntiVirus Engine
X-scanresult: CLEAN
X-MAILFROM: <hu.fangwei@zte.com.cn>
X-RCPTTO: <bier@ietf.org>
X-FROMIP: 192.168.168.120
X-SEG-Scaned: 1
X-Received: unknown,192.168.168.120,20170509092420
Received: from unknown (HELO out1.zte.com.cn) (192.168.168.120) by localhost with SMTP; 9 May 2017 01:24:20 -0000
X-scanvirus: By SEG_CYREN AntiVirus Engine
X-scanresult: CLEAN
X-MAILFROM: <hu.fangwei@zte.com.cn>
X-RCPTTO: <gjshep@gmail.com>
X-FROMIP: 10.30.3.20
X-SEG-Scaned: 1
X-Received: unknown,10.30.3.20,20170509091629
Received: from unknown (HELO mse01.zte.com.cn) (10.30.3.20) by localhost with (AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 9 May 2017 01:16:29 -0000
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse01.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id v491RYvD066050; Tue, 9 May 2017 09:27:34 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from hu.fangwei@zte.com.cn)
Received: from xgxapp03.zte.com.cn ([10.30.14.24]) by szhqsmtp02.zte.com.cn (Lotus Domino Release 8.5.3FP6) with SMTP id 2017050909274549-19880845 ; Tue, 9 May 2017 09:27:45 +0800
Received: from mapi (xgxapp01[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid71; Tue, 9 May 2017 09:27:35 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 09 May 2017 09:27:35 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2af959111b0761d-c0161
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <201705090927354739430@zte.com.cn>
References: CABFReBp-LnmyNV5VjiF4YW+9zqXn7L6WLFKgPr8aEZ88DTEqVQ@mail.gmail.com, CA+RyBmU2L5TtJbBqB9XtJz3uce8KBCdsDZwBWUixS-zg1peOeA@mail.gmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: hu.fangwei@zte.com.cn
To: bier@ietf.org
Cc: gjshep@gmail.com
X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on szhqsmtp02/server/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.3FP6|November 21, 2013) at 2017-05-09 09:27:45, Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.3FP6|November 21, 2013) at 2017-05-09 09:27:19, Serialize complete at 2017-05-09 09:27:19
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse01.zte.com.cn v491RYvD066050
X-HQIP: 127.0.0.1
X-HQIP: 127.0.0.1
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/ZVGCh1cQJl1PphacVgWv4e_FuP4>
Subject: [Bier] 答复: Re: WGLC draft-ietf-bier-architecture-05
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: Tue, 09 May 2017 01:27:52 -0000
Support Regards Fangwei 原始邮件 发件人： ＜gregimirsky@gmail.com＞ 收件人： ＜gjshep@gmail.com＞ 抄送人： ＜bier@ietf.org＞ 日 期 ：2017年05月08日 10:19 主 题 ：Re: [Bier] WGLC draft-ietf-bier-architecture-05 yes/support Regards, Greg On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Greg Shepherd ＜gjshep@gmail.com＞ wrote: 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-architecture/ Please read and respond do this thread. EOWGLC - 20/5/17 Thank you, Chairs _______________________________________________ BIER mailing list BIER@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier