Re: [mpls] Concerned by the silence [Was: Working Group Last Call : draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-04]

Adrian,

I just looked through the draft and support its publication. That said, it
would be nice if section 1 included a bit more motivation - what were the
issues with the current states of RFCs 8029 and 8611 (besides needing to be
"more precise"?) and what would be the consequences of leaving things as
they were.

Cheers,
Andy

On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 11:59 AM Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:

> I know this is not the most exciting document the working group has ever
> produced, but as shepherd I need to see some comments and expressions of
> support.
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls <mpls-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> Sent: 24 September 2020 17:32
> To: 'mpls' <mpls@ietf.org>
> Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update@ietf.org
> Subject: [mpls] Working Group Last Call :
> draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-04
>
> Hi MPLS WG,
>
> As previously noted, I'm the shepherd for this document and I'm running the
> working group last call as agreed by the chairs.
>
> This email starts a two-week last call on
> draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-04
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update/
>
> Please send your opinions to the mailing list before October 9th.
>
> While yes/no opinions are not without value, it is far more helpful if you
> can indicate whether you have read the latest version of the draft, and
> what
> the reasons are for your opinions.
>
> Of course, all of your review comments will be helpful in improving the
> document.
>
> Best,
> Adrian
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>