[mpls] HEADS UP!! ----Re: Document (draft-ietf-mpls-rmr) returned to working group - poll for interest.

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Working Group

A little more than a week ago I sent this mail to the working group, 
asking about the interest to continue the work on draft-ietf-mpls-rmr. 
As of today I have not seen any reaction whatsoever.

I could take that to mean (unless there are a lot of mails the rest of 
this week) that there are no interest to continue working on the document.

I'm intrested to see all kinds of reactions e.g.:

- No, I don't think this is something the working group should do
- Hmmm, I don't have an opinion one way or another, if there are enough
   support to do continue working on it, I don't care if it is
   progressed.
- Yes, given that there are enough support we should go ahead an re-
   review the document, update and request publication.

For all categories it is good if you have technical motivations.

/Loa

On 03/10/2020 00:04, Loa Andersson wrote:
> Working Group,
> 
> This mail starts a two week poll to establish the interest to continue 
> work on draft-ietf-mpls-rmr.
> 
> draft-ietf-mpls-rmr were returned to the working to the working group 
> (about 2 weeks ago).
> 
> Normally a document is returned this late in the process when a 
> necessary change is discovered that requires working group consensus 
> (i.e. a wglc) to implement. This time the document were returned due to 
> lack of (or very slow) response to directorate or the IESG reviews.
> 
> When a document is returned for a well defined technical change it is 
> fairly easy to handle, we make the change and do a wglc.
> 
> I have spent time trying to figure out what to do in a case like this. 
> There is very little information in our process document. The wg chairs 
> has converged on the following small process.
> 
> - establish wg interest for the document, i.e. is this something we want 
> to do and do we have interest participating in progressing the document.
> - leave approximately 2 weeks for working group discussion
> - wglc
> - when comments from the wglc is resolved, redo the publication request
> 
> This document start a two week poll to establish the level of interest 
> to continue to work on draft-ietf-mpls-rmr.
> 
> Please answer the following 2 questions:
> 
> - do you think draft-ietf-mpls-rmr is need and will actually be deployed?
> 
> - do you have the cycles to contribute to progressing the document
> 
> /Loa
> for the working group chairs
> 
> 

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]