[RTG-DIR] Sorry I missed that draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement were progressing to IESG review
Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Mon, 01 February 2016 06:11 UTC
Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F6C61A002D; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 22:11:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 yckS84y1IOoi; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 22:11:57 -0800 (PST)
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 364811A0015; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 22:11:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.13] (unknown [49.149.222.125]) (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 A3811180137F; Mon, 1 Feb 2016 07:11:53 +0100 (CET)
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
To: rtg-dir@ietf.org, "rtg-ads@ietf.org" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <56AEF71A.6070208@pi.nu>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 14:11:38 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/XLOUV1VwBqDcIwQO34Ul9-bbM88>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] Sorry I missed that draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement were progressing to IESG review
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 06:11:59 -0000
Folks, I just saw the DISCUSS from Deborah on draft-ietf-spring-problem- statement. This draft slid under mt radar, sorry I should have been more observant. I find my self a bit split, on one hand I support Segment/Source Routing (there are a number of cases where it is beneficial), on the other hand I quite agree with what Deborah put in her DISCUSS/COMMENT. Especially we need to take care when we talk about other, especially IETF, technologies. I went back to see what we said in the rtg dir review and to my surprise found that it was not reviewed by the directorate. I fail to see why this is. Shouldn't this important draft have been through a directorate review? /Loa -- Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64
- [RTG-DIR] Sorry I missed that draft-ietf-spring-p… Loa Andersson
- Re: [RTG-DIR] Sorry I missed that draft-ietf-spri… Alvaro Retana (aretana)