Re: [mpls] WG consensus check: RFC 7506 (IPv6 Router Alert Option) tohistoric
chengweiqiang <chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com> Thu, 04 April 2024 13:10 UTC
Return-Path: <chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com>
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 74FD4C14F69A for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 06:10:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 4_0nNS9AhE8D for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 06:10:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmccmta2.chinamobile.com (cmccmta2.chinamobile.com [111.22.67.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A9DDC14F5E3 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 06:10:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-RM-TagInfo: emlType=0
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from spf.mail.chinamobile.com (unknown[10.188.0.87]) by rmmx-syy-dmz-app07-12007 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee7660ea6a896b-e51b1; Thu, 04 Apr 2024 21:10:02 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee7660ea6a896b-e51b1
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com ( [223.72.41.130] ) by ajax-webmail-syy-spmd03-11013 (Richmail) with HTTP; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 21:10:02 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2024 21:10:02 +0800
From: chengweiqiang <chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com>
To: "tony.li" <tony.li@tony.li>, mpls <mpls@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <2b05660ea2806bb-00008.Richmail.00004062567071468426@chinamobile.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_6280_256611087.1712236202180"
X-Priority: 3
X-RM-TRANSID: 2b05660ea2806bb-00008
X-RM-OA-ENC-TYPE: 0
X-RM-FontColor: 0
X-CLIENT-INFO: X-TIMING=0&X-MASSSENT=0&X-SENSITIVE=0
X-Mailer: Richmail_Webapp(V2.4.29)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/ops59ncUDPrql5EIL_CsihQiQmo>
Subject: Re: [mpls] WG consensus check: RFC 7506 (IPv6 Router Alert Option) tohistoric
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: Thu, 04 Apr 2024 13:10:16 -0000
Yes, I support moving RFC 7506 to Historic. B.R. Weiqiang Cheng ---原始邮件--- 发件人: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> 发送时间: 2024-04-03 01:00:55 收件人: mpls <mpls@ietf.org> 主题: [mpls] WG consensus check: RFC 7506 (IPv6 Router Alert Option) tohistoric [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 listmpls@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
- Re: [mpls] WG consensus check: RFC 7506 (IPv6 Rou… chengweiqiang