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

Hi,

I support the progress of this document as "experimental”.

I have the availability to contribute and review the document.

I think that this technology will get deployed.

Thanks,

--Colby

> On Dec 18, 2020, at 12:07 AM, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> 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: loa@pi.nu
> Senior MPLS Expert                          loa.pi.nu@gmail.com
> Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls