[OSPF] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-05

Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com> Wed, 14 June 2017 21:34 UTC

Return-Path: <gjshep@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECDD1128616; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 14:34:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 mUGxGZI7i1-s; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 14:34:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x22f.google.com (mail-qt0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE5451243F3; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 14:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id u19so16980253qta.3; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 14:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=JItfheMSuzgrHk6Y0MDQeDS62j5hbPEeWiST1qSnMFU=; b=I8zDzZDP4z0welZlB43uTqgVmYEFeOrZ+w9egaGuUD+8UkHuRK11z8m8ke2PDQlQ3e RzQMp2pa1SZ3OnxGQjem7cB+EUNbehx2y+vMCHTOoJnx6lOBqQL8PupJQvn0uQ5rGwJf MjRpXQsOsDKlqqymO+BNlK4N2eu3NKFOAsWn5K7fbuPz7YG4NJMx6YzTbYQ5dnzdiCxd VZj5SZGLZjCXUiUHdFJTUJDjIZ6cMcRwL+EuQZgLjcqkqbQGujVF972LBRZOM/CyxcH5 cgX6ZNNNpyUEl4bDBI+2n3FVCC1X3FRvdUhCoBZmaONjPhMsHcbQXmrh7CwBGobtUAiK LdhA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:reply-to:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=JItfheMSuzgrHk6Y0MDQeDS62j5hbPEeWiST1qSnMFU=; b=Eol2NwwjmfrMRobYNJRn9u2cwzTBSmR/2YwMsv+YSq1ZDswk7j9HXe99pUzG0t5TqT eDXcYci1jin/UWeJ6ovkCVotI1dYSxI69jPMCRRjkjSGb4Vv+T1TqX4c555nnwtO+f51 g+guCmfCBq1YHqQgZhUIpJPr5rJD03HgDrS9cn55GkiBzszAm1QDukA8vexADGWDmslp B58gOi46K906C8dOorrmpFI86TvrLrmGxdWA4xo3ZJ9ktgf8j+hSdVnbFBE1buH7cr0O o+ECptfteK+iMDXw/H50WhVCiCMa2lygGwwOlhxoqa491VYWTULGeTCcq+ymQZ9ZEaO3 /e2A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOyXwTM6wNHl/4V0jNAK21HZ6jzrUFgepfj37p3V/fVzbMq7jztj RlTd5XZodNfwc6sp+yfWEQTy9YcBp7Wf
X-Received: by 10.55.215.80 with SMTP id m77mr1947108qki.186.1497476072019; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 14:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.200.9.4 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 14:34:31 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: gjshep@gmail.com
From: Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 14:34:31 -0700
Message-ID: <CABFReBq7EzS=ujGKj4FyLitji04ptpH5txbWq3C+UzHRvrOVig@mail.gmail.com>
To: "bier@ietf.org" <bier@ietf.org>, ospf@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1149da5a551b580551f25128"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/YaZ5li0_74iJlgg-WZMnVQFBjoA>
Subject: [OSPF] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-05
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ospf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 21:34:35 -0000

BIER, OSPF

At BIER WG meeting, IETF97 in Chicago, we decided to move forward to WGLC for
some of our docs. We learned that even once published the IESG has a
process to change the track of the RFC if the WG makes the case to move the
work from Informational to Standards track. The feedback from operators is
that RFC status was more important than track, and we won't be able to meet
our charter requirements to change track without deployment experience and
operator support.

This email starts a two week timer for feedback on the draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions/

WGLC to run in parallel in both BIER and OSPF WGs due to the scope of the
work.

Thanks,
Greg
(BIER Chairs)