[Isis-wg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04

Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com> Wed, 14 June 2017 21:29 UTC

Return-Path: <gjshep@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4950E12EB06; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 14:29:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 55ad7J4Pi3El; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 14:29:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x234.google.com (mail-qt0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::234]) (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 2E449129BD7; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 14:29:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x234.google.com with SMTP id w1so16657173qtg.2; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 14:29:29 -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:cc; bh=iiBFl+5vMZe1PB2VUylCiTrLC1wIL49SxwBgwxzG+Jc=; b=MbqIXy955sjvKgBKzO5YtxjzvAxFVuRZT9G8z1G9tnln390wRWjjOdmlqZec+t+eGg QQj57JCIdcnGvBNEPYk982g8xmnbgCPt3eOPbdC7l08i53sxQp11FA0M1NUB7H5/uctA E9zPqCj8svKnLKHGvm5Vf1vlRzAWDsQ76vJq74uz+RTwdnypCl2V0ORLZTqwxUqa6H5E aRf0Z1P7xKIa3ONbo16nMqNcHr17Z0c2UULk0K2LBG0Kthb33TlSEG8wu3AlaLMcrJ8T en/T+5xxthO2hx91jkvj/KPlPtUymz4JLOpA8U35xgtqA9FkhB52tyCArDy43uunkRC2 y38g==
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:cc; bh=iiBFl+5vMZe1PB2VUylCiTrLC1wIL49SxwBgwxzG+Jc=; b=uaFZhyLSxF8TOG7uVZ60Lp0v5oqoorMQLiQzOzHXAGOE72DIkdb0P2Jkbwfit+yGJw hMeffhxPyZwr8zvCy0vBkkjVwBdwbxJNNZf8t13qYcVYydLpsP1wR+Vm0uZyg4MRJr7E VUMcC2ifcJ5aCtzalJmgY4sGTbPU34XEo00OjVw1EtnqWsfM7RMU4ifcQODbvxXigSwL aJaeEdtg1zfyfYdcMmorQR4+Pnsl36bgZzBgQlZTgqDWfmZuPsqmITv02LNsNqIzxzBd qo+CMMk4WA2HhtS750RURfSXuGggx+GUyuWZ/pQKQnORufrT8bIuxETgkHmQZeP3z1V4 fEHg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOzzxaQVabEyWl81cgnUOfqg7MTLdFMppRvvNwpr/YvkVjPaZCbS 3Xe7Tgd4wE6+OTf+RMXiMhh1BRapsRu6
X-Received: by 10.55.161.148 with SMTP id k142mr2533426qke.168.1497475768125; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 14:29:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.200.9.4 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 14:29:27 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: gjshep@gmail.com
From: Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 14:29:27 -0700
Message-ID: <CABFReBooEqBJd1VTx3x5VovNGkmhZ0UOjb_RMopF6Of7RrZi9A@mail.gmail.com>
To: "bier@ietf.org" <bier@ietf.org>, isis-wg@ietf.org
Cc: chopps@chopps.org, hannes@gredler.at
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c06f158380baf0551f23ff5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/-TdIhLd1m8lurkMNPIroFpjDlwk>
Subject: [Isis-wg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-04
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <isis-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/isis-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 21:29:31 -0000

BIER, ISIS-WG

At BIER 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-isis-extensions/

Please review as WGLC in both BIER and ISIS WGs, as the draft spans both
WGs in scope.

Thanks,
Greg
(BIER Chairs)