Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-design-03

I have not had the time to read the proposal yet, I believe it is useful
to have failover available for larger installations.

So, please don't drop it.

On 26/07/13 17:42, Tomek Mrugalski wrote:
> On 19.07.2013 15:59, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
>> Folks, the authors of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-design-03
>> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-design)
>> believe it is ready for working group last call. Please review this
>> draft and indicate whether or not you feel it is ready to be published.
>> Your input is important!
> I support this work moving forward. It doesn't count much, as I'm co-author.
>
> I'm somewhat disappointed with the complete lack of any comments. When
> we started the work on v6 failover, there was exactly 20 people
> expressing their interest in this work that wanted to join the the
> effort. A year and a half passed and now there seems to be noone to even
> say "yeah, it's ok".
>
> A week has passed for this WGLC already. WGLC will end in 2 weeks, so
> there's still plenty of time for a through review. If you want to have
> v6 failover, respond. Make no mistake - without sufficient support, this
> work will fail WGLC.
>
> If you have time - please review it. If you are busy or just don't care
> about the details, saying that you support this work is useful and you
> want it to move forward is helpful, too.
>
> Tomek
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

-- 
Best regards

Sten Carlsen

No improvements come from shouting:

       "MALE BOVINE MANURE!!!" 

Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-design-03 - Respond by August 9, 2013!