IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] Intended status of draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology

Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Mon, 09 November 2020 11:41 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA2893A0F22; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 03:41:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8dfDTnaILerw; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 03:41:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta7.iomartmail.com (mta7.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.157]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 559CB3A08AB; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 03:41:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (vs3.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.124]) by mta7.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 0A9BfgiZ023373; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 11:41:42 GMT
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F2C622042; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 11:41:42 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.224]) by vs3.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93BE92203C; Mon, 9 Nov 2020 11:41:42 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([87.113.103.132]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 0A9Bfe36013885 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 9 Nov 2020 11:41:41 GMT
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: N.Leymann@telekom.de
Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org
References: <CA+RyBmViLvqf6hZzsB704MC95fdYc36v7tb96itzHWaGeLaRKw@mail.gmail.com> <B60F8567-DFA1-4414-A663-C150D4B199D9@gmail.com> <LEXPR01MB05597513E1F07FDF78878E06981E0@LEXPR01MB0559.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE>
In-Reply-To: <LEXPR01MB05597513E1F07FDF78878E06981E0@LEXPR01MB0559.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2020 11:41:39 -0000
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <04de01d6b68d$4a5189f0$def49dd0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQDpU5aqN2bbhCc8PbCUaKhAViuUMwLvljIqAriPixqrbTAmEA==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 87.113.103.132
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-25776.007
X-TM-AS-Result: No--5.818-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--5.818-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-25776.007
X-TMASE-Result: 10--5.817600-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: PL66URbwWA/xIbpQ8BhdbNOEZs/2oH3cqb3/o5s+OcNFsPBvc3lnCpy8 UG+qg0r7aiUaVLlRbHr7g4SUfBVTpSfiWWEH8aB8fPskp+yAAPG8xE2H2EuMWVhs8uimgHNC6Za mopeZkvmrFzkzPx5APBC15Py5I4UVwhXVvDgfTzfxkn8eupvmjBw8sdZHxJe7XfXw2EpveOUKLb KYPmW2h1ABXBgDMoPntYeLyw8STFryVujG5dfKszTcXEw8UOqKF3nR+1V5ZpLDra5IbmQvVtFzy 6a7C4kVPnDFEdmoUTiF3TFo56EVKcATnKYJweaPcI7vRACwF0LRto/oyXPrO6q9wgXVNwtgzmom /ra40Sxz4DXQkCAAFbqVHowypq9nTJernwykDe/sjRHO89icwuP6p+9mEWlCK8VLPDcP9n7sNYJ gIRthgBkMVGnr702qEq4ZB1GwAJh6bMYbioM9qcK1Ib9JAALxktBHfvLK/JrypNG1mkh1DKPFjJ EFr+olLDsA/nRtw8nQqQhSw0x2VN0H8LFZNFG7/nnwJ52QYi/M/gWu/p797mNQBk3ApoLliWgxe CtQFlKLP0IE5HeHj1lpvIcAD7agftwZ3X11IV0=
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/XEiIaPddTUlJhx5ZGM9IA3uIE4k>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Intended status of draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2020 11:41:49 -0000

Hi Nic, all,

Except for a couple of nits caught by Loa, it's been quiet on this draft for
a month.

I'll post -05 on Monday when the doors re-open just to tidy up those nits.

The point of returning the document to the WG was, I think, to enable a
further WG last call after the comments from IETF last call had been
addressed (in -04) because the change was quite extensive and included a
modification to how label 7 is handled. It looks like the status of the
document was set to "In WG last call" but no last call was started.

Nic, let me know if the authors should do anything different.

Best,
Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: N.Leymann@telekom.de <N.Leymann@telekom.de> 
Sent: 19 October 2020 12:05
To: stewart.bryant@gmail.com; gregimirsky@gmail.com
Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology@ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org
Subject: AW: [mpls] Intended status of draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology

Hi,

Yep, in deed I forgot to change it - should be fixed by now.

regards

Nic

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: mpls <mpls-bounces@ietf.org> Im Auftrag von Stewart Bryant
Gesendet: Freitag, 16. Oktober 2020 19:33
An: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology@ietf.org; mpls <mpls@ietf.org>
Betreff: Re: [mpls] Intended status of draft-ietf-mpls-spl-terminology

Greg

It updates an ST RFC so it has to be ST.

I think the draft is right (it changed) but the shepherd forgot to update
the tracker.

- Stewart

> On 16 Oct 2020, at 15:59, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Authors,
> hope you can clarify the intended status of the draft. I've noticed that
the datatracker reflects it as Informational while the document itself
states that is on the Standards track. As I understand RFC 2026 a document
is either on Standards or non-Standards, e.g., Informational track.
> Thank you in advance.
> 
> Regards,
> Greg
> _______________________________________________
> 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email