IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] WG consensus check: RFC 7506 (IPv6 Router Alert Option) to historic

xiao.min2@zte.com.cn Wed, 03 April 2024 02:28 UTC

Return-Path: <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
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 4ED35C14F61E for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Apr 2024 19:28:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.892
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.892 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uw830b6sp_qm for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Apr 2024 19:28:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.216.63.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22952C14F5F5 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Apr 2024 19:28:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.5.228.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4V8TFp4HFzz8XrRP; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 10:28:46 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njy2app03.zte.com.cn ([10.40.13.14]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 4332SeXR023418; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 10:28:40 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from xiao.min2@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njy2app04[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 10:28:41 +0800 (CST)
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2024 10:28:41 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afc660cbed9688-94324
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202404031028414344VmCOGol622eBfoxWLBBP@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <19F1FC07-F79B-44A6-A604-372729C42CA4@tony.li>
References: 19F1FC07-F79B-44A6-A604-372729C42CA4@tony.li
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
To: tony.li@tony.li
Cc: mpls@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn 4332SeXR023418
X-Fangmail-Gw-Spam-Type: 0
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 660CBEDE.000/4V8TFp4HFzz8XrRP
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/bc_aL8x4yt_5m3kIHV-_v6a6ISI>
Subject: Re: [mpls] WG consensus check: RFC 7506 (IPv6 Router Alert Option) to historic
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Wed, 03 Apr 2024 02:28:54 -0000

Yes, I support moving RFC 7506 to Historic.

Cheers,
Xiao Min

Original


From: TonyLi <tony.li@tony.li>
To: mpls <mpls@ietf.org>;
Date: 2024年04月03日 01:02
Subject: [mpls] WG consensus check: RFC 7506 (IPv6 Router Alert Option) to historic

[WG chair hat: on]


Hi all,

It has been proposed that we transition RFC 7506, "IPv6 Router Alert Option for MPLS Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)” to Historic.

This note starts a two-week consensus check on this change. Please reply-all with: 

    “Yes, I support moving RFC 7506 to Historic”

or

    “No, I do not support moving RFC 7506 to Historic”

This poll will close at 12:01 PM PDT 16 Apr 2024.

Thanks,
Tony

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email