IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: progress of draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Wed, 02 March 2016 23:06 UTC

Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@gmail.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 38F561B33E5 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 15:06:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-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 KR1mV7OJ5jAX for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 15:06:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22b.google.com (mail-wm0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22b]) (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 A6EC81B33E6 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 15:06:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id p65so9603777wmp.0 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 Mar 2016 15:06:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QRpK1AmhCQEJ337rTKtPQ6z2vMjRCPShxzY7eKffvBY=; b=ZTb1qYcDkESs0bj0gU7TY4Wg5LVXC8YJGVNynaQ6fqh8khL9PzInfkyYT4aoMhU6JA OFv9ZxVaHxdlnsSexjKmxLZ/RpM3Yak5FWiikCfIIcV2PGGtSC0tZD1QOdPIyUCXnlOe CGw/oSchgyRGYjNLvYVKnZL9XC/Ux6D8BorQKcWxKFicjK2voDuc79lnkqsNGnmY8mXY tzPOpsbXQlj1IRgvgX0XylbNjW0o2AOdwMegz45xAeD4SE4r9iv7doHtH8vj0aFEv5Gu k20TAWNoy+LMNkgTUCg47ZLFY94fbF2MvNH3BvvuVqcmsmdL/rNst9CgmanoJVAZjslf b3/Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QRpK1AmhCQEJ337rTKtPQ6z2vMjRCPShxzY7eKffvBY=; b=As4Spyg5of9Xqn1/EjKSJcX7IoZOfR3dLiuusL+AZSwl1z1mmkH/oPRnGHzbUHkNRl VrtsggffTqsWK/ufAo+a/qxG9VqXDYVj5hsWJ8+VH/pzXT9l/6L3xV6Ld5ctMI5Jw2E7 i+IH+qTzvk1c7d+VJIjXBSDsTwqbk/hMIao7DAwHF6PhHlViXwC8Ig6NTWMRbk/ydc4q ezWOWA/Dqsd7WePA36Gvu4RXqB/y3I7qk7ujbBUV/Zk0ROmcuaYujo/M4LWS9az0xegs ox1E86z1dz0rzMSPVcjTS0S/TBcAfprHFX6vXhQKOYKqkm8ZtA4Dj2K2kFOHX6l+9uGC nVvQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJI0v5cRqbWQFEifKfMejV/CfBxrMWSkYZqp9kwwmUt4SpQgGjxdTSF3mfzVH5beEw==
X-Received: by 10.194.192.36 with SMTP id hd4mr26928170wjc.85.1456959982240; Wed, 02 Mar 2016 15:06:22 -0800 (PST)
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 g3sm38051505wjw.31.2016.03.02.15.06.20 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 02 Mar 2016 15:06:20 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: progress of draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay
To: Jeff Tantsura <jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com>, Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
References: <103AF684-41C8-495D-B2E5-C13322B7EEEF@ericsson.com>
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56D771EC.1030503@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 23:06:20 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <103AF684-41C8-495D-B2E5-C13322B7EEEF@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/pTdDMbFKPDe0vFGWeR5CD-v1tc4>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 23:06:25 -0000


On 02/03/2016 19:06, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
> Instead, if there are no implementations planned, we have several 
> options.  We can proceed towards publication more or less as is, with 
> WG last call in the near future.  Or we can explicitly decide to wait 
> to publish the document, leaving it either as an active WG document or 
> as a parked WG document, and wait for one or more implementations.  
> With the last option, we could leave open the option of publishing at 
> some point in the future, even if no implementations appear. 

.. or we could do as we did with a number of other IPFRR cases where 
there were no implementations and hence no deployment experience, and 
publish as experimental.

At this stage I think experimental would be the way to go.

- Stewart

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email