Re: [mpls] Do you care about MNA? [Was: 2nd Working Group Last call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements]

[[e-mail]]

All,

I'm very much on the same page as Stewart. With one caveat, the response
from the operators in this 2nd WGLC is diminishing, as compared to the 
first WGLC. Not a big difference, but nevertheless.

I think it is important to have an operator support for requirement
documents.

First, I will not object if the shepherd/chairs decide to send the document
to the IESG with a request for publication. However, I think it will be
returned with a request to show operator support.

What I think should happen now is that the shepherd/chairs keep the WGLC
open waiting for comments from operators.

/Loa

than it was for the document
in the first WGLC (not much)
> Yes, I think we are finished to the point where the wider review and
editorial process can take over.
> Stewart
>> On 30 Mar 2024, at 5:45 pm, Joel Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:
Having reread the document, it seems to me we are at the point of
significantly diminishing returns in terms of tuning.  While I have seen
>> some useful comments on the list that can be addressed, my basic
reaction is "ship it".
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>>> On 3/28/2024 4:01 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>>> I'm kind of giving you all a ticking clock reminder.
>>> Of course, I'm no longer a WG chair, so I won't be calling consensus
on
>>> this, but I will be answering the shepherd write-up question that asks
what
>>> the consensus was like on this document.
>>> If, as the general noise on the list implies, people care about MNA,
then
>>> commenting during this last call seems important.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Adrian
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: mpls <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
>>> Sent: 21 March 2024 15:21
>>> To: 'mpls' <[e-mail]>
>>> Cc: [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: [mpls] 2nd Working Group Last call on
>>> draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements
>>> Hi all,
>>> I know it is IETF week and you all have other things to do (nice
meals,
>>> sight-seeing, combatting jet-lag), but I just wanted to remind you to
look
>>> at this document and make your comments about the last call.
>>> With last calls, silence generally means no support!
>>> Best,
>>> Adrian
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: mpls <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
>>> Sent: 12 March 2024 16:46
>>> To: 'mpls' <[e-mail]>
>>> Cc: [e-mail]
>>> Subject: [mpls] 2nd Working Group Last call on
>>> draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements
>>> This email starts a second MPLS working group last call on
>>> draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements.
>>> (You may recall that the first last call produced a lot of discussion
and
>>> issues that Matthew, as editor, has worked valiantly to resolve.)
Please re-review the document (it has changed a lot since last time) and
>>> express an opinion on the list.
>>> - Is the document complete?
>>> - Does it contain any errors?
>>> - Is it ready to move forward for publication as an Informational RFC?
There is no IPR disclosed against this document or its predecessors. All
>>> authors, contributors, and active working group participants are
reminded of
>>> their responsibilities under BCP 79.
>>> This last call will run for three weeks (covering the IETF period). It
will
>>> end at 17.00 UTC on Tuesday 2nd April (narrowly avoiding ending on 1st
April
>>> and confusing us all).
>>> Thanks,
>>> Adrian (for the MPLS chairs)
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mpls mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mpls mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mpls mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls