[mpls] Closed - Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Mon, 28 September 2015 06:04 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 031FD1A8F4B for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Sep 2015 23:04:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.79
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RKSP2zJp2k52 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Sep 2015 23:04:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu []) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFB701A1B85 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Sep 2015 23:04:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 25A4B18013BE; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 08:04:25 +0200 (CEST)
To: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
References: <55E970CF.3070804@pi.nu>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <5608D864.5050106@pi.nu>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:04:20 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <55E970CF.3070804@pi.nu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/dlUvf7N4CiSQDsGUEgoBgQNCB_w>
Cc: "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path.all@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: [mpls] Closed - Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 28 Sep 2015 06:04:30 -0000

Working Group,

This working last call has concluded, we only have supportive comments.


Can you plese verify that you want to go ahead and request publication
for the current version (or make necessary updates and repost a new

mpls wg co-chair

On 2015-09-04 18:22, Loa Andersson wrote:
> Working Group,
> This is to start a two week working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-
> rfc6374-udp-return-path.
> Please send your comments to the mpls wg mailing list (mpls@ietf.org).
> An IPR poll has been completed before the wglc, all co-authors has
> stated that they are unaware of any IPRs that relates to this document.
> This working group last call ends September 19, 2015.
> For this document we would like to add a few comments/concerns.
> As working group chairs.
> This document was accept as working group document in August
> 2014, there has been four versions since it became a working group
> draft. I changes are not critical, but there are a number of them. Since
> we accepted the document there has been no discussion on the list.
> In particular there is a section (part of 3.1) that the RFC Editor is
> (correctly) requested to remove before publication. This section
> discusses alternatives to the solution the author choose. As far as we
> can see there has been no discussion on the mailing on the alternatives
> on the mailing list after the draft became a working group document.
> For those reason we would like to solicit careful reviews during the
> working group last and explicit comments of the section to be removed.
> An individual comment.
> I have reviewed the document and sent comments (mostly nits) to the
> authors I believe the document is in pretty good shape. I have no
> concerns on the document as such, more that I don't have proof of
> working group support and engagement.
> /Loa
> for the mpls wg co-chairs