IETF Logo Mail Archive

[pim] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-mvpn-05

Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com> Wed, 14 June 2017 22:01 UTC

Return-Path: <gjshep@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B08D5127077; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 15:01:21 -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 bqWI8NdzY78Z; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 15:01:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x231.google.com (mail-qt0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::231]) (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 9A3541242F7; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 15:01:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x231.google.com with SMTP id c10so17948176qtd.1; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 15:01:19 -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=CBehlhbnnENtzlkxDKKTo4uGhRyxM54kd2jsYrimXKE=; b=MXhXvN27yVTvYRELw09UQ7ORn11zo6k/lX2j9Qa9rQaMzTG7bZIsiXsJFt/hDBkgDT 6o1TK5sDIyS09xedHrJN4NK7O+eQbbiX2rJr3x+ASyx6U6PXtxzL/m5J+TAvDTUvT8e9 eLUCyl8+ffPse9DRp7uMgnjBmUqBNfLRijQmbXkz0Fls8H7RbfghLKUeW9fDUmUamThh g39YmR/CZrFniAj9EPSCeMBM0rtO0sQ8P1bNXjnAvy6eYUGu/qI0F4bNayMNsDF5IRyr tnYs3WNDI4Z/h3IjP7sPmdE9ojkYzlvD/BbC+0lQaMBQ08ClUY2yAaIL0tth8JSzYuxa YV9A==
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=CBehlhbnnENtzlkxDKKTo4uGhRyxM54kd2jsYrimXKE=; b=HWrakR0MUa8yrCqQGnBzvSVoZJkBUFgm5JEBhKSHw4CC04kshM7UcdO6fPPcezAFge /BSDm6qD9Y8FrjLFoMl6bxcK1fmighZr+5QxJNxpmdB/Ns/R+2Sq0tktPhx5z58OKkRm 1yMsubfqZkq4yKPHqNCe6U73D4UewW6bzTJjLgq211vHtiM6eDBmv53ur37dQde9atqs jmKsuJSiBeDrWHQMxr4yWH16ZkxIOb6iTmOoVuyy+K0md65hR2/8/xiZG9eCwW40jhQT sj2FKzWA/YmMI/gJYDt4k7ow6UWpmz0UPy7h/mWSYGV2PkBpdchKOU10FNrWx9NhzRbC m2zw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOxwtrzlAus7umaalGjvSJza4L8Er6H7HlHd8Ev6eoXLlocHTwY9 I5uWQIW9XSvvZvfTjHpMdwbsM9W2bJme
X-Received: by 10.237.41.7 with SMTP id s7mr2956208qtd.178.1497477678440; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 15:01:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.200.9.4 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 15:01:18 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: gjshep@gmail.com
From: Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 15:01:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CABFReBoN6YbJr+fqigLuWBStUS2-4rfHuVKONSJdNU4RRK9qaw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "bier@ietf.org" <bier@ietf.org>, bess@ietf.org, "pim@ietf.org" <pim@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c06b00c1526210551f2b19f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/O3HSt6UuIOnyU0WUBO5PKw_kJkQ>
Subject: [pim] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-mvpn-05
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <pim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pim/>
List-Post: <mailto:pim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 22:01:22 -0000

BIER, BESS, PIM

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-mvpn

WGLC to run in parallel in both BIER, BESS, and PIM WGs due to the scope of
the work.

Thanks,
Greg
(BIER Chairs)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email