[Mpls-review] Continuation of MPLS Review Team
Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net> Wed, 18 July 2012 19:28 UTC
Return-Path: <rcallon@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: mpls-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87C0811E8199 for <mpls-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:28:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -107.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-107.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_INVITATION=-2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aj+wmFTxIf+l for <mpls-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:28:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og108.obsmtp.com (exprod7og108.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1AB711E8166 for <mpls-review@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:28:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob108.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUAcOekj1ccug0euBlKMQvWfizoaqL6+9@postini.com; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:28:59 PDT
Received: from P-CLDFE01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.59) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:26:41 -0700
Received: from p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.25) by p-cldfe01-hq.jnpr.net (172.24.192.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:26:41 -0700
Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::c126:c633:d2dc:8090%11]) with mapi; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 15:26:40 -0400
From: Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>
To: "mpls-review@ietf.org" <mpls-review@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 15:26:38 -0400
Thread-Topic: Continuation of MPLS Review Team
Thread-Index: Ac0h6xriFxYYpe2sQX6YPLNFzKDp1AAVYrngEH8oFbAANeQdEA==
Message-ID: <DF7F294AF4153D498141CBEFADB17704C71317FBBF@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [Mpls-review] Continuation of MPLS Review Team
X-BeenThere: mpls-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: MPLS Review <mpls-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls-review>, <mailto:mpls-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls-review>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-review>, <mailto:mpls-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 19:28:08 -0000
Earlier you agreed to join the MPLS review team in order to help the chairs in review of documents. Originally the experiment was scheduled to run through the IETF in Vancouver. The original email inviting you to help us is included below. The WG chairs have found the reviews to be quite useful. We are therefore extending the review team indefinitely. We do not intend to make changes to the review team membership at this time (although we may add or remove people in the future as appropriate). Please let us know if you are unable to continue to help us out in this particular capacity. Feel free to let us know if you have suggestions regarding how to simplify, speed up, or otherwise improve the process. Thanks, Ross, George, and Loa (as MPLS WG co-chairs) -----Original Message----- From: Ross Callon Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 4:13 PM Cc: Loa Andersson; George Swallow; Ross Callon; Martin Vigoureux Subject: Invitation to MPLS Review Team <long list of recipients are BCC'd> The MPLS working group is going to experiment with a review team, to review documents prior to the documents being polled for WG adoption. Reviews should comment on whether the document is coherent, is it useful (ie, is it likely to be actually useful in operational networks), and is the document technically sound? Initially the experiment will run through the Vancouver IETF meeting. If we, after evaluating the results, find this useful it will be incorporated as a normal part of WG operation. We would like to invite you to participate in this review team through the Vancouver IETF. If you accept, then it is likely that you will be asked to review between two to four documents during this period of time. Are you willing to help out with this effort? Thanks, Ross, Loa, and George
- [Mpls-review] Continuation of MPLS Review Team Ross Callon