IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Mon, 05 June 2017 09:47 UTC

Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF49B128DF6 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Jun 2017 02:47:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 xl-RHwGNMeoa for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Jun 2017 02:47:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x22e.google.com (mail-wr0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 014571287A7 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Jun 2017 02:47:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id g76so35246552wrd.1 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 05 Jun 2017 02:47:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language; bh=Qhnx7EL+DR6aCWLLUv3syEl7t+AIbEXbfLzeEjmqEpE=; b=Y9z1BSa+qWwAObRvH+D+z6LH7rw2sQQMgAu5iCGBYlroRz0h07GQv02dkhFKbfMUUz yvu4ykgBnsk9spGZR/xRyEYncuJgUkJkC9nT3ooFhnYiRukepygmffTK6xEa3fgKI1jz TJaNYyfkqJiO1BuGfJD1xu6GMoT9pNskT2e+s658Ewr3aQcEGeAAVSEkwox0qsymjHH1 xrPWuk4A98B9XCHY59egjFFzPkroT53d8WltwJzB1Tng5pVMUt2h6cYumdS7lnJewbXp XYSx1YotH02J/WZmh5hkmqqswrBQNT6zWix1UFBsQROsVQZWdORTWSuqV/29/2UUPXKz h0EQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=Qhnx7EL+DR6aCWLLUv3syEl7t+AIbEXbfLzeEjmqEpE=; b=ou6bvMgqW8D6grasvrHfOjMbRk00mSkryhnEi6YsSwCdyMSXAJ+srd3qA8tkGRJecX sWEyiodLZ65ZyXsmUFor0vgv94o6RJPXV9945XQlj1ZPBILvjmqCBRL5zDMgeNWVjj8t s0uOlZU1y7bex2L6n9lJ6+UJrKHz6Wm0x6KiYVo6EFy6b+uDxQn6Pk7wO7XTYD6UdyuV K+/1YhcjpFJy/FETa41ne0/pfUiG16opsnC1BgLUKXU25PGRDYK3DjK1jiEMVn1sMxln ON5YRFhcSfFNRMzThdE37JOtfOH8AW1K4KAq2PMTZkJ2fwKF5iAAp5JkHim3XbgjwDVo 1WkQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcAaksdpTnafsPEXSDvvdCYBJkZ5TqMk+j/oPL7KH22j9TVK3G3v t+30jjlX7n/BHhTftqs=
X-Received: by 10.223.160.68 with SMTP id l4mr14865426wrl.130.1496656072280; Mon, 05 Jun 2017 02:47:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.126] (host213-123-124-182.in-addr.btopenworld.com. [213.123.124.182]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m17sm7196496wmi.6.2017.06.05.02.47.51 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 05 Jun 2017 02:47:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay
To: Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
References: <MWHPR05MB2829DC391A9101895C1D297FA9F70@MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <D558B7A5.B2045%acee@cisco.com> <MWHPR05MB28296990E1AEB0A5ADA98BBFA9F50@MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <dd035061-9e2c-6361-7fda-b3f6b3588d55@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2017 10:47:48 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR05MB28296990E1AEB0A5ADA98BBFA9F50@MWHPR05MB2829.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------BF599ED116C0DE8FA19ACF41"
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/Xt2DW2h4Xzc_zCg9AMUkSk7ftjc>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 05 Jun 2017 09:47:56 -0000

Hi Chris

An RFC is surely sufficient to specify the behaviour of the router, and 
communicate to others the capability of a product.

If multiple routers needed to act identically across the network I could 
see ST as better, but this is really a single router feature.

- Stewart

On 04/06/2017 17:47, Chris Bowers wrote:
>
> 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:acee@cisco.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 3, 2017 6:05 PM
> *To:* Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>; RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
> *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 <rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org>> 
> on behalf of Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net 
> <mailto:cbowers@juniper.net>>
> *Date: *Friday, June 2, 2017 at 4:43 PM
> *To: *Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>>
> *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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> rtgwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email