[mpls] Closed: should draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label be published as a RFC on the standards track?

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Sun, 13 May 2018 10:04 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
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 E64B71242F5; Sun, 13 May 2018 03:04:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ngVEDjr2v5RZ; Sun, 13 May 2018 03:03:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C29812D889; Sun, 13 May 2018 03:03:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.4] (c83-250-142-104.bredband.comhem.se [83.250.142.104]) (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 B001918013B2; Sun, 13 May 2018 12:03:57 +0200 (CEST)
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
To: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Cc: "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label@ietf.org>, "mpls-ads@ietf.org" <mpls-ads@ietf.org>
References: <a3dbc94b-061c-8eb8-7302-3a60f3db4a3f@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <f46823cf-68ab-16a9-649d-cd0bffac84a8@pi.nu>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 12:03:55 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a3dbc94b-061c-8eb8-7302-3a60f3db4a3f@pi.nu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/w_Xbm_xEz01HiynmsGE0srH5nJo>
Subject: [mpls] Closed: should draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label be published as a RFC on the standards track?
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sun, 13 May 2018 10:04:02 -0000

Working Group,

This poll has been closed.

We have no objections to publishing draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label
as a RFC on the standards track. We also seem to have some support for
adding information that an entropy label is not necessarily the only
method handling ECMP.

I will forward this to Deborah (AD responsible for this document).

/Loa

On 2018-05-02 09:44, Loa Andersson wrote:
> Working Group,
> 
> February 1st the MPLS working Group requested that draft-ietf-mpls-
> spring-entropy-label should be published as an Informational RFC.
> 
> During the RTG Directorate and AD reviews the question whether the
> document should instead be published as a RFC on the Standards Track
> has been raised.
> 
> The decision to make the document Informational was taken "a long time
> ago", based on discussions between the authors and involving the
> document shepherd, on the wg mailing list. At that point it we were
> convinced that the document should be progressed as an Informational
> document.
> 
> It turns out that there has been such changes to the document that we
> now would like to request input from the working group if we should make
> the document a Standards Track RFC.
> 
> Daniele's RTG Directorate review can be found at at:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-08-rtgdir-lc-ceccarelli-2018-02-21/ 
> 
> 
> All the issues, with the exception whether it should be Informational
> or Standards track, has been resolved as part AD review.
> 
> If the document is progressed as a Standard Tracks document then we
> also need to answer the question whether this is an update RFC 6790.
> 
> This mail starts a one week poll (ending May 9) to see if we have
> support to make the document a Standards Track document. If you support
> placing it on the Standards Track also consider if it is an update to
> RFC 6790.
> 
> Please send your comments to the MPLS wg mailing list ( mpls@ietf.org ).
> 
> /Loa
> for the mpls wf co-chairs
> 
> PS
> 
> I'm copying the spring working group on this mail.

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64