IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] 1 Week notice of intent for: draft-ietf-idr-rtc-no-rt-00.txt

Jon Mitchell <jrmitche@puck.nether.net> Tue, 16 June 2015 02:23 UTC

Return-Path: <jrmitche@puck.nether.net>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 191B21ACD3C for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 19:23:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 zJGaa2t56Q3Y for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 19:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from puck.nether.net (puck.nether.net [204.42.254.5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 493DC1ACD33 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 19:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.8] (pool-70-106-220-218.clppva.fios.verizon.net [70.106.220.218]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by puck.nether.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F12C25406D3; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 22:23:19 -0400 (EDT)
References: <00ff01d0a7c8$325b5ad0$97121070$@ndzh.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <00ff01d0a7c8$325b5ad0$97121070$@ndzh.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-AD6FC9B7-6E9F-44D8-A598-911F1EDFD41D"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <2DEF8347-1172-43A3-AE4F-F1F44AFA9501@puck.nether.net>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12F70)
From: Jon Mitchell <jrmitche@puck.nether.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 22:23:18 -0400
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/XZQmzbUOoTjYlZSjEO_RPigsN3I>
Cc: "<idr@ietf.org>" <idr@ietf.org>, "John G. Scudder" <jgs@bgp.nu>
Subject: Re: [Idr] 1 Week notice of intent for: draft-ietf-idr-rtc-no-rt-00.txt
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 02:23:31 -0000

Support for WGLC, personally feel the abstract is a bit wordy (some if the background could be moved or already exists in Intro) but can be handled in editing process if authors agree.

-Jon

> On Jun 15, 2015, at 8:05 PM, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:
> 
> IDR WG:
>  
> The IDR Chairs find that draft-ietf-idr-rtc-no-rt-00.txt solves an important administrative for RTC for address families that do not carry RTs.   However a WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-rtc-no-rt-00.txt had no responses.   This is a notice that the WG chairs intend to forward this draft to the IESG as a WG consensus  document. 
>  
> John and I suspect that people are focused on BGP protocol changes or BGP yang modules rather than worry about the administrative documents (reasonable for WG members).  However, the chairs must worry about the administrative drafts as well.
>  
> This 1 week WG call is to ask the IDR WG if anyone objects to forwarding this document as an IDR consensus document.
>  
> Sue Hares
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email