Re: Adoption call for draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag-* (ends April 30, 2017)

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jeff and Reshad, et. al,

would like to thank all who took time to share their views on the
drafts, problem, and the proposed solution. It would be of great help
to us, authors, to understand which of three aspects of WG adoption
call we should concentrate on improving:


   - clarity of the writing;
   - scope of the problem;
   - proposed solution.

Regards,
Greg

Hi authors,

We do not yet have consensus to adopt these 2 drafts as BFD WG documents.

Regards,
Reshad.



On 2017-04-17, 6:55 PM, "Rtg-bfd on behalf of Jeffrey Haas"
<[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]>
<[e-mail]&gt>; wrote:

>Working Group,
>
>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag-ip-00
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tanmir-rtgwg-bfd-mc-lag-mpls/
>
>The authors of BFD on Multi-Chass Link Aggregation Group Interfaces for IP
>and MPLS have requested BFD working group adoption for their drafts.
>
>These drafts were previously presented at IETF-96.
>
>Please note that IPR has been declare against these drafts.  The IPR
>declaration may be found from the datatracker links.
>
>Please indicate your support/lack of support to the mailing list.
>
>-- Jeff and Reshad
>
>