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

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Working Group,

This poll is closed . the chair will need a few days to write down the 
consensus call.

/Loa

On 18/12/2020 13:07, Loa Andersson 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: [e-mail]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]