Re: [mpls] Do you care about MNA? [Was: 2nd Working Group Last call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements]

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Stewart,

The way I understand the IETF working group process the chairs have poll the working group to find the answer for that. But it would be to have a project without requirements. Especially since it now seems that among the responders so far there is support for publish the requirement document. 
What we lack now is the operator opinions, we should try to get them. 

/Loa

Sent from my iPhone

> On 2 Apr 2024, at 14:49, Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> If the requirements draft  fails due to lack of operator support, does that mean that we then reject the rest of the project including the solutions drafts?
> 
> Stewart
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
>> On 2 Apr 2024, at 06:41, [e-mail] wrote:
>> 
>> All,
>> 
>> I'm very much on the same page as Stewart. With one caveat, the response
>> from the operators in this 2nd WGLC is diminishing, as compared to the
>> first WGLC. Not a big difference, but nevertheless.
>> 
>> I think it is important to have an operator support for requirement
>> documents.
>> 
>> First, I will not object if the shepherd/chairs decide to send the document
>> to the IESG with a request for publication. However, I think it will be
>> returned with a request to show operator support.
>> 
>> What I think should happen now is that the shepherd/chairs keep the WGLC
>> open waiting for comments from operators.
>> 
>> /Loa
>> 
>> than it was for the document
>> in the first WGLC (not much)
>>> Yes, I think we are finished to the point where the wider review and
>> editorial process can take over.
>>> Stewart
>>>>>> On 30 Mar 2024, at 5:45â?¯pm, Joel Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> Having reread the document, it seems to me we are at the point of
>>> significantly diminishing returns in terms of tuning.  While I have seen
>>>>> some useful comments on the list that can be addressed, my basic
>>> reaction is "ship it".
>>>>> Yours,
>>>> Joel
>>>>> On 3/28/2024 4:01 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>>>>> I'm kind of giving you all a ticking clock reminder.
>>>>> Of course, I'm no longer a WG chair, so I won't be calling consensus
>> on
>>>>> this, but I will be answering the shepherd write-up question that asks
>> what
>>>>> the consensus was like on this document.
>>>>> If, as the general noise on the list implies, people care about MNA,
>> then
>>>>> commenting during this last call seems important.
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Adrian
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: mpls <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
>>>>> Sent: 21 March 2024 15:21
>>>>> To: 'mpls' <[e-mail]>
>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]
>>>>> Subject: Re: [mpls] 2nd Working Group Last call on
>>>>> draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>> I know it is IETF week and you all have other things to do (nice
>> meals,
>>>>> sight-seeing, combatting jet-lag), but I just wanted to remind you to
>> look
>>>>> at this document and make your comments about the last call.
>>>>> With last calls, silence generally means no support!
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Adrian
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: mpls <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
>>>>> Sent: 12 March 2024 16:46
>>>>> To: 'mpls' <[e-mail]>
>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]
>>>>> Subject: [mpls] 2nd Working Group Last call on
>>>>> draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements
>>>>> This email starts a second MPLS working group last call on
>>>>> draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements.
>>>>> (You may recall that the first last call produced a lot of discussion
>> and
>>>>> issues that Matthew, as editor, has worked valiantly to resolve.)
>> Please re-review the document (it has changed a lot since last time) and
>>>>> express an opinion on the list.
>>>>> - Is the document complete?
>>>>> - Does it contain any errors?
>>>>> - Is it ready to move forward for publication as an Informational RFC?
>> There is no IPR disclosed against this document or its predecessors. All
>>>>> authors, contributors, and active working group participants are
>> reminded of
>>>>> their responsibilities under BCP 79.
>>>>> This last call will run for three weeks (covering the IETF period). It
>> will
>>>>> end at 17.00 UTC on Tuesday 2nd April (narrowly avoiding ending on 1st
>> April
>>>>> and confusing us all).
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Adrian (for the MPLS chairs)
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> mpls mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> mpls mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> mpls mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mpls mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls