Re: [mpls] MPLS WG poll on making draft-ietf-mpls-rmr

[Chandrasekar Ramachandran <[e-mail]>]

I think draft-ietf-mpls-rmr is needed and will actually be deployed.
I support the progress of the document as experimental.

Thanks,
Chandra.

>  On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 11:07 PM Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>     Working Group,
> 
>     This is to start a "two week" poll on publishing draft-ietf-mpls-rmr as
>     an Experimental RFC.
> 
>     Mid-September the responsible AD sent draft-ietf-mpls-rmr back to the
>     working group. The direct reason was that there did not seem to be any
>     interest by the authors to respond to the IESG review.
> 
>     The working group chairs took the action start a poll in the working
>     group to see if there were interest (in the wg) to continue progress the
>     document.
> 
>     There were no other responses, than from the two authors, to this poll,
>     and the wg chairs agree that there are no documented interest to
>     progress the draft in the current format.
> 
>     The logical action would have been kill the draft.
> 
>     However, we have been asked id we could make the document
> Experimental.
>     Obviously this will generate problems with down refs and code point
>     allocation. But after carefully going through the documents, with some
>     innovative writing it the Shepherds Write-Up, this could be managed.
> 
>     Please respond to the following questions.
> 
>     If draft-ietf-mpls-rmr were made an Experimental document
> 
> 
>     - do you think draft-ietf-mpls-rmr is needed and will actually be
>        deployed?
> 
>     - do you have the cycles to contribute to progress and review the
>        document?
> 
>     - are there interest to progress the document in this fashion?
> 
>     /Loa
>     for the MPLS wg chairs
> 
>     --
> 
>     Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
>     Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
>     Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]


Juniper Public