Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-06.txt

[Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]>]

Hi Curtis,

Please let me know how would you like to proceed with the draft.
If you feel it should progress and since Routing Directorate is done with
no issues found - please resubmit, I¹ll provide writeup and submit to the
IESG.

Thanks!

Cheers,
Jeff




-----Original Message-----
From: Curtis Villamizar <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 12:06 PM
To: Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "<[e-mail]>"
<[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
<[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
<[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-06.txt

>In message <[e-mail]>
>"Joel M. Halpern" writes:
>> 
>> Hello,
>>  
>> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this
>>draft. 
>> The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
>> drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and
>> sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide
>> assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing
>> Directorate, please see
>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
>>  
>> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs,
>>it 
>> would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF
>> Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through
>> discussion or by updating the draft.
>>  
>> Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-06.txt
>>      Advanced Multipath Use Cases and Design Considerations
>> Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
>> Review Date: 23-January-2015
>> IETF LC End Date: N/A
>> Intended Status: Informational
>>  
>> Summary: No issues found. This document is ready for publication.
>>  
>> Minor note: This draft appears to have expired.
>
>
>Hello again Joel,
>
>FYI - to the Cc.  I emailed Joel off list about this.  This draft lay
>dormant in "AD review" for a long time.  Apparently the AD shepard had
>a change of heart about this .. or something.
>
>The draft itself could be described as inconsequential but contains
>parts of earlier CL requirements draft and CL framework that more
>closely resembled use cases.  This draft exists both to be
>informational and to unclutter the requirements and framework.
>
>At this point I can submit another draft.  But ...
>
>I would like to know from the co-authors two things:
>
>  1.  Is there still interest in CL aka Advanced Multipath?
>  2.  Any changes in contact information?
>
>I'm particularly interested in whether there is interest at Verizon
>since they were the potential user driving this in the first place.
>However two of the three Verizon co-authors to the CL drafts are no
>longer at Verizon.
>
>No further replies should be interpreted as "no interest" although an
>explicit "no interest" would be preferred if that is the case.
>
>If there is interest I'll resubmit this.  If there is still interest
>in the framework, we can resurrect that document as well but the
>framework needs work and discussion had fallen off to nothing by the
>time it expired.
>
>Curtis
>
>_______________________________________________
>rtgwg mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg