IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Bier] WGLC draft-ietf-bier-architecture-05

<zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn> Mon, 08 May 2017 01:09 UTC

Return-Path: <zhang.zheng@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 CF232128A32 for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 May 2017 18:09:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, 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 RLfb8gOuhELb for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 May 2017 18:09:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F530127286 for <bier@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 May 2017 18:09:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-scanvirus: By SEG_CYREN AntiVirus Engine
X-scanresult: CLEAN
X-MAILFROM: <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
X-RCPTTO: <bier@ietf.org>
X-FROMIP: 192.168.168.120
X-SEG-Scaned: 1
X-Received: unknown,192.168.168.120,20170508090603
Received: from unknown (HELO out1.zte.com.cn) (192.168.168.120) by localhost with SMTP; 8 May 2017 01:06:03 -0000
X-scanvirus: By SEG_CYREN AntiVirus Engine
X-scanresult: CLEAN
X-MAILFROM: <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
X-RCPTTO: <bier@ietf.org>
X-FROMIP: 10.30.3.20
X-SEG-Scaned: 1
X-Received: unknown,10.30.3.20,20170508085816
Received: from unknown (HELO mse01.zte.com.cn) (10.30.3.20) by localhost with (AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 8 May 2017 00:58:16 -0000
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse01.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id v4819B7p038408; Mon, 8 May 2017 09:09:11 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn)
Received: from njxapp03.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.202]) by notes_svr37.zte.com.cn (IBM Domino Release 9.0.1FP6) with SMTP id 2017050809090906-3396997 ; Mon, 8 May 2017 09:09:09 +0800
Received: from mapi (njxapp02[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Mon, 8 May 2017 09:09:12 +0800 (CST)
Date: Mon, 08 May 2017 09:09:12 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afa590fc538ffffffff847-3c60d
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <201705080909120393066@zte.com.cn>
References: CABFReBp-LnmyNV5VjiF4YW+9zqXn7L6WLFKgPr8aEZ88DTEqVQ@mail.gmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn
To: gjshep@gmail.com
Cc: bier@ietf.org
X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on notes_svr37/zte_ltd(Release 9.0.1FP6|April 20, 2016) at 2017/05/08 09:09:09, Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.3FP6|November 21, 2013) at 2017-05-08 09:09:00, Serialize complete at 2017-05-08 09:09:00
X-TNEFEvaluated: 1
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse01.zte.com.cn v4819B7p038408
X-HQIP: 127.0.0.1
X-HQIP: 127.0.0.1
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/ag61PSoEVD7MaS0hzL1JRU1vzlY>
Subject: Re: [Bier] 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: Mon, 08 May 2017 01:09:30 -0000

Support.





Thanks,

Sandy













原始邮件



发件人： ＜gjshep@gmail.com＞
收件人： ＜bier@ietf.org＞
日 期 ：2017年05月06日 06:56
主 题 ：[Bier] WGLC draft-ietf-bier-architecture-05






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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email