[mpls] Resend: MPLS WG poll on making draft-ietf-mpls-rmr an Experimental RFC

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Workig Group,

When I sent this out I was uncertain on the date to close the poll, I 
said "two week" poll. I let us get through the holidays and count from 
January 1st, the du date is Junauary 14, 2021.

/Loa

On 18/12/2020 13:07, Loa Andersson 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: [e-mail]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]