Re: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-06.txt
Curtis Villamizar <curtis@ipv6.occnc.com> Wed, 11 February 2015 20:06 UTC
Return-Path: <curtis@ipv6.occnc.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71B4B1A9026; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:06:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.512
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.512 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 2u_F406oeqPx; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:06:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from maildrop31.somerville.occnc.com (maildrop31.somerville.occnc.com [IPv6:2001:550:3800:203::3131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0D171A904D; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:06:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from harbor31.somerville.occnc.com (harbor31.somerville.occnc.com [IPv6:2001:550:3800:203::3231]) (authenticated bits=128) by maildrop31.somerville.occnc.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t1BK63b4073326; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:06:04 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from curtis@ipv6.occnc.com)
Message-Id: <201502112006.t1BK63b4073326@maildrop31.somerville.occnc.com>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@ipv6.occnc.com>
Subject: Re: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-06.txt
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 23 Jan 2015 16:08:58 -0500." <54C2B86A.6010607@joelhalpern.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <73324.1423685163.1@harbor31.somerville.occnc.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:06:03 -0500
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/RWj4X8MzgiJzNScCAWh7KvIGotQ>
Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "<rtgwg@ietf.org>" <rtgwg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases@tools.ietf.org, "rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org" <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: curtis@ipv6.occnc.com
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 20:06:42 -0000
In message <54C2B86A.6010607@joelhalpern.com> "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
- RtgDir review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-06.t… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-… Curtis Villamizar
- Re: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-… Curtis Villamizar
- Re: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-… Curtis Villamizar