Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

This is fine with me as well. I simply anticipated this being a point of discussion.
Thanks,
Acee

From: Bruno Decraene <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 5:47 AM
To: Chris Bowers <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Acee Lindem <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Routing WG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: RE: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay

I agree with Chris.
In addition, this document is likely/may be referenced by RFC defining FRR solutions. Having it STD track would avoid downward normative references.

--Bruno

From: rtgwg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Chris Bowers
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2017 6:48 PM
To: Acee Lindem (acee); RTGWG
Subject: RE: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay

As a WG participant, I think standards track makes most sense, since it specifies a precise behavior for a router under certain conditions.  It is likely that network operators and software implementers will want to use the document as a means of communicating about whether or not a given implementation supports that precise behavior.  In my opinion, a standards track document is the best format to support that interaction.

Chris

From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Saturday, June 3, 2017 6:05 PM
To: Chris Bowers <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; RTGWG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay

I support advancement and publication of this draft.  I think we should have the discussion of whether or not it should be standards track, BCP, or informational as invariably this question will arise during all the reviews.
Thanks,
Acee

From: rtgwg <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Chris Bowers <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Friday, June 2, 2017 at 4:43 PM
To: Routing WG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay

RTGWG,

This email starts the two week WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay/

Please indicate support for or opposition to the publication of this
standards track document, along with the reasoning for that support or
opposition.

IPR:
If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to
this email stating whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The
response needs to be sent to the RTGWG mailing list. The document will
not advance to the next stage until a response has been received from
each author and each individual that has contributed to the document.

The document currently has the following IPR disclosure associated
with it.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2565/

This last call will end on Friday June 16th.

Thanks,
Chris and Jeff


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.