Re: [mpls] Poll to see if we have consensus to adopt draft-ryoo-mpls-tp-aps-updates as an mpls working group document

Huub van Helvoort <huubatwork@gmail.com> Mon, 07 March 2016 09:26 UTC

Message-ID: <56DD4957.2000508@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2016 10:26:47 +0100
From: Huub van Helvoort <huubatwork@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
References: <56DA9B26.8050800@pi.nu>
In-Reply-To: <56DA9B26.8050800@pi.nu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/tut9PW0OgaGyXeGObOzaP4hbSus>
Cc: "draft-ryoo-mpls-tp-aps-updates@ietf.org" <draft-ryoo-mpls-tp-aps-updates@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Poll to see if we have consensus to adopt draft-ryoo-mpls-tp-aps-updates as an mpls working group document
Precedence: list
Reply-To: huubatwork@gmail.com

All,

Yes, I support adoption of this draft to become WG draft.

Cheers, Huub.

------------

On 05-03-16 09:39, Loa Andersson wrote:
> Working Group,
>
> This is to start a two week poll on adopting draft-ryoo-mpls-tp-aps-
> updates as an MPLS working group document.
>
> Please send your comments (support/not support) to the mpls working
> group mailing list (mpls@ietf.org). Please give a technical
> motivation for your support/not support, especially if you think that
> the document should not be adopted as a working group document.
>
> There are no IPR disclosures against this document.
>
> All the authors has stated on the on the mpls wg mailing list that they
> are not aware of any IPRs that relate to this document.
>
> Note: One of the issues that surfaced in the MPLS-RT review was that the
> implementation status was unclear. To check on this we did an early
> implementation poll. There have been responses to the mailing, to the
> mpls wg chairs and to my uni-directionally. The conclusion is that
> RFC 7271 (the specification that this document updates) is well
> implemented and we know of deployments; a rather large number of
> vendors says that they will implement this draft and operators has
> stated that it will be deployed once it is available.
>
> The working group adoption poll ends March 19, 2016.
>
> /Loa
>
> MPLS wg co-chair.


-- 
*****************************************************************
               请记住，你是独一无二的，就像其他每一个人一样

[mpls] Poll to see if we have consensus to adopt … Loa Andersson
Re: [mpls] Poll to see if we have consensus to ad… Adrian Farrel
Re: [mpls] Poll to see if we have consensus to ad… Ryoo, Jeong-dong
Re: [mpls] Poll to see if we have consensus to ad… Zhangxian (Xian)
Re: [mpls] Poll to see if we have consensus to ad… Yang, Jong Han
[mpls] R: Poll to see if we have consensus to ado… D'Alessandro Alessandro Gerardo
Re: [mpls] Poll to see if we have consensus to ad… 정태식
Re: [mpls] Poll to see if we have consensus to ad… Andrew G. Malis
Re: [mpls] Poll to see if we have consensus to ad… Huub van Helvoort
Re: [mpls] Poll to see if we have consensus to ad… Yuji Tochio
Re: [mpls] Poll to see if we have consensus to ad… Italo Busi
Re: [mpls] Poll to see if we have consensus to ad… SeunghyunShim_MODO
Re: [mpls] Poll to see if we have consensus to ad… Akira Sakurai
Re: [mpls] Poll to see if we have consensus to ad… Rolf Winter
Re: [mpls] Poll to see if we have consensus to ad… 이광국 (Infra 구조 Project)
[mpls] Closed - Poll to see if we have consensus … Loa Andersson
Re: [mpls] Closed - Poll to see if we have consen… Ryoo, Jeong-dong