IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com> Fri, 05 May 2017 22:56 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 F0B5612943A for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 May 2017 15:56:28 -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 vr1ElE0938dn for <bier@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 May 2017 15:56:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x230.google.com (mail-qt0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::230]) (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 351D5129413 for <bier@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 May 2017 15:56:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x230.google.com with SMTP id n4so16495492qte.2 for <bier@ietf.org>; Fri, 05 May 2017 15:56:27 -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=ZV+tZ4WXo3XsviX9Y+Gl4EnUC94us7veC0GNAynNzho=; b=vaqJwjUy+BEsAE77RoRHNh+k1UAngyzdh0oncn3GfmWyANuB3RNfh1nobwruddK3Oy yorXMHLpKNfIaLukAx8R94/LEVc4NulSqS/tjeOo1/CLxlTwh318XAPrYnaXYm123ZhA aoO+JkGu84LwdzWjnBDuXvayAvIPApoiSOshmKrQXhKDP55sZOUiUnl3hmEu6rYyfqwY EIvfFHNr1/ovnM3rTDQrnr6C1ykyENMWRIDMnNLRo2c3bsdPnSeS/QexLUU5uiMUv4Xn k4wqQsGd2JENRXss7dNxOtOcocdu3k4JsonwU7BKzJ5IkxteQvrN2+Es1kNWqns769ia Qkgg==
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=ZV+tZ4WXo3XsviX9Y+Gl4EnUC94us7veC0GNAynNzho=; b=f5ZeKlnY9QEZyOqn+AQs5g1eRIg7rBIBoYK+Uoo4UpYvLTm6ULGaAMYb/s2GNV1A+x Q2LDXAf97wGTY2FSIy5ZsHBNf4ERZhEskypCGt5rgPlCxMlONm+zFF+ok+LukcrsCpGJ tbVgDAYal1/uWJYiYpq9xht6qltUVHXD0HwnbW1YElwHNLRFPXEVxM+YcfyOkL/kxsbH tv7T4VH3oKuXwFVgM8bFpHe4x8OsSdZzbIuxIIopfvIg+tODET79qp6J8RX69iltX1YG sV8O1zqaGe4f1jUjmqLmgvlh5Rzp+LH7v8yb9IWdRIySieBx0di8fPVCkPwB6rpXSSh0 METQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcCniCz7Rzw17lt911dchIcEEagXhNw3uYrvZKMc4pF+SW54+dea EQs/M0SPhXu1mStl/e5eu+zPzkxtQ11N
X-Received: by 10.200.49.194 with SMTP id i2mr1216126qte.156.1494024986318; Fri, 05 May 2017 15:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.200.42.101 with HTTP; Fri, 5 May 2017 15:56:25 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: gjshep@gmail.com
From: Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 15:56:25 -0700
Message-ID: <CABFReBp-LnmyNV5VjiF4YW+9zqXn7L6WLFKgPr8aEZ88DTEqVQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "bier@ietf.org" <bier@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1140ef8c985c89054ececc91"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bier/ek77mYEhp2w1cCrarlPT3SnmggY>
Subject: [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: Fri, 05 May 2017 22:56:29 -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-architecture/

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

Thank you,
Chairs

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email