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

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

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]