IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] Poll to see if we have consensus to adopt draft-ryoo-mpls-tp-aps-updates as an mpls working group document

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Sat, 05 March 2016 16:27 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FBFB1B3395; Sat, 5 Mar 2016 08:27:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 ElAqV5TR4w21; Sat, 5 Mar 2016 08:27:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 383171B3396; Sat, 5 Mar 2016 08:27:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u25GRawt006069; Sat, 5 Mar 2016 16:27:36 GMT
Received: from 950129200 ([79.141.128.249]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u25GRYd9006060 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 5 Mar 2016 16:27:35 GMT
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Loa Andersson' <loa@pi.nu>, mpls@ietf.org
References: <56DA9B26.8050800@pi.nu>
In-Reply-To: <56DA9B26.8050800@pi.nu>
Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2016 16:27:36 -0000
Message-ID: <05e401d176fb$ee26bcc0$ca743640$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQKt79g9rUg2jBKK/jxTCAZ01IZljp2SF/jA
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.0.0.1202-22174.000
X-TM-AS-Result: No--12.327-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--12.327-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: 1GZI+iG+Mte2uGZ0VrPO/SuRmcDMF+7vynX51d66ecuqvcIF1TcLYKKE RaDOI8KFElkddelp8WYuntQAyESQibXAj35CMHKuvnSVh24OCE5XLUapz6y7gS62hjZS0WoYl5g cQsiAks1chubhxwKgm6oSMdHwVfcFnPecQ/hKOMCZroPNdqiG8wuK1hIitSIHS+D/9ULgnEy7CG rJz6r8kMdnJ8ZhqciAnQ3vRvq5Kl/oKVMZp6ADvdjGRkLinPFIpfVcx39Kq+4kcJhDAxLsGRj+B QpbRgyo9C9CMIwENAJYs5LhMSIPqsaTKeuPWRxynVTWWiNp+v9BldmDYjwlpudTjSOFC/vqo8WM kQWv6iV95l0nVeyiuEIhOWyY9/MAC24oEZ6SpSkj80Za3RRg8ECDAGC3ToCnXo8Zd4UPVFAyjH4 0ARd+JSEfDH727Ui74JuxhNWpcyM=
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/9FToQqtA3uoFVugjIldguXJJGP0>
Cc: draft-ryoo-mpls-tp-aps-updates@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] Poll to see if we have consensus to adopt draft-ryoo-mpls-tp-aps-updates as an mpls working group document
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2016 16:27:41 -0000

What I said last time :-)

> I appreciate the time the authors have put in to identify and resolve
> issues with the original document. Always good to apply polish to WG
> products, and so this should be run through the WG to update RFC 7271.

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson
> Sent: 05 March 2016 08:39
> To: mpls@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ryoo-mpls-tp-aps-updates@ietf.org; mpls-chairs@ietf.org
> Subject: [mpls] Poll to see if we have consensus to adopt
draft-ryoo-mpls-tp-aps-
> updates as an mpls working group document
> 
> Working Group,
> 
> This is to start a two week poll on adopting draft-ryoo-mpls-tp-aps-
> updates as an MPLS working group document.
> 
> Please send your comments (support/not support) to the mpls working
> group mailing list (mpls@ietf.org). Please give a technical
> motivation for your support/not support, especially if you think that
> the document should not be adopted as a working group document.
> 
> There are no IPR disclosures against this document.
> 
> All the authors has stated on the on the mpls wg mailing list that they
> are not aware of any IPRs that relate to this document.
> 
> Note: One of the issues that surfaced in the MPLS-RT review was that the
> implementation status was unclear. To check on this we did an early
> implementation poll. There have been responses to the mailing, to the
> mpls wg chairs and to my uni-directionally. The conclusion is that
> RFC 7271 (the specification that this document updates) is well
> implemented and we know of deployments; a rather large number of
> vendors says that they will implement this draft and operators has
> stated that it will be deployed once it is available.
> 
> The working group adoption poll ends March 19, 2016.
> 
> /Loa
> 
> MPLS wg co-chair.
> --
> 
> 
> Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
> Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email