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

I support the progress of this document as "experimental".

I do believe that this work will get deployed and I do have cycles to
contribute/review.

Regards,
-Pavan

On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 11:07 PM Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> 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: loa@pi.nu
> Senior MPLS Expert                          loa.pi.nu@gmail.com
> Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>