Return-Path: X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5CC1127918; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 11:25:27 -0800 (PST) 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 es8op_Tp87mL; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 11:25:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-it1-x12e.google.com (mail-it1-x12e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12e]) (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 DA1AE124184; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 11:25:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-it1-x12e.google.com with SMTP id m137so22561678ita.0; Fri, 08 Mar 2019 11:25:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=hCeIcp1uJOC5s43m+bN6IV9EaKzg30m57nF5OtRe5F8=; b=lxN5yJ51e4Cgdz05nZ9mSzdUIhST9sTajzD43aRuN7MSYTbpwEjT1dqTB13oofMiCL LRvMlb2/PKuihYL4FLv5lkvr2Tz4sGQl/VLj45OpHogh3KokEMsfrBbqm6ENES3iYQOY 4T6NACCmCaw0YOy2ECpHWnv2ht9jlKzDyW5PZcQ3pKSzvAZyh7I+ZTOw+VLHiHAJTOus cdgvepZgdVG5onvwxIfVsczF+kgpooNMzsxg4fAQOKnBWc7Yhk0YQX0Nh48+/kj//R6q 01QIHz6Ua7k1mjfDytDKo/0pGZVBMZ3ZZTanRUYkC1JY/grnIGaOzzH9XfcQZ8qULT+R rYEQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=hCeIcp1uJOC5s43m+bN6IV9EaKzg30m57nF5OtRe5F8=; b=psY3CM5XM9UWbwVUB9c2ApMEJBm4tprJamJqpYOp6ksAhfZrWg6BNL2dt1hPGfQM7P 2ZZIQaFskWuZl8f5QKmMqmmkkMFQfKIVYGc5+OyRvjcvTuw4MF01HIa4lXE92yJ1SvyZ u7SmGeJDkjVTKoVZzLZpIYCAPX1crVaLaUfmmyOMmvR/+02WgkCWjRhPXvk3sO+3sCDK chh42IXRRU/N+rr7iUM0oJwGirlYRc1qfB/Yy6mue/nikwT0w+gPIAkiR/nbV2rZzoCL gLH3Q4TbG2f/9zmJei4Gb57k9OU1fvAAHYbuimw7vpIOHLqik8n+LipmCBErsT8iP+LG St3w== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXnvToah7VbooMkl5B7PIyou/8m+HzGdyMJQWzSJQyp8eaPc+TL ht4zayzZFHp5NItO7cYImsCx/QsIaXbOwWTrdZs+DyV0zzI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxNSzjEeJOphvQeLl5Z534Adr74nsy7B4VbsyJ2ZidSSGlL+gwzAtgQmnUGH5v4qSyDfFcTmTj8+6qJFPSH6fw= X-Received: by 2002:a24:cc43:: with SMTP id x64mr9258726itf.97.1552073124905; Fri, 08 Mar 2019 11:25:24 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <155189817187.307.659471814489604970.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6800dd59-ee76-9985-ec6c-060d9ee9d498@labn.net> In-Reply-To: <6800dd59-ee76-9985-ec6c-060d9ee9d498@labn.net> From: Xufeng Liu Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2019 14:25:13 -0500 Message-ID: To: Lou Berger Cc: TEAS WG , "draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000468dcf05839a2f06" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Teas] Fwd: IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2019 19:25:28 -0000 --000000000000468dcf05839a2f06 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi Lou, The change summary has been posted to the WG mailing list ( https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/sQ2wMTXYXwniUujt29fysqHwwpI). Please advise if the authors need to do anything further. Thanks, - Xufeng On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 4:21 PM Lou Berger wrote: > All, > > The recent versions of the te-topology doc had sufficiently > significant technical changes that our AD and I, with input from the > authors, agreed that the document should come back to the WG and to rerun a > full last call process. The key changes in rev -19 were: > > - Referencing the te-types document and updates to point to its module > > - introduction of information-source-instance > > The second change is a technical change resulting from implementation > experience, so is a good change, but as it is a substantive technical > change the document has to come out of the RFC editor queue to accept it. > Authors, > Can you send out a message summarizing all changes. > > We will then restart the WG LC process. > > Thank you, > Lou (as Shepherd/co-chair) > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo > Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 10:49:31 -0800 > From: IETF Secretariat > > To: lberger@labn.net, teas-chairs@ietf.org, > draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo@ietf.org > > > The IETF WG state of draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo has been changed to "WG > Document" from "Submitted to IESG for Publication" by Deborah Brungard: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo/ > > > _______________________________________________ > Teas mailing list > Teas@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas > --000000000000468dcf05839a2f06 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Lou,

The= change summary has been posted to the WG mailing list (https://mai= larchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/sQ2wMTXYXwniUujt29fysqHwwpI). Please ad= vise if the authors need to do anything further.
Thanks,
- Xufeng

On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 4:21 PM Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> wrote:
=20 =20 =20

All,

=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 The recent versions of the te-topology doc had su= fficiently significant technical changes that our AD and I, with input from the authors, agreed that the document should come back to the WG and to rerun a full last call process.=C2=A0 The key changes in rev -= 19 were:

- Referencing the te-types document and updates to point to its module

- introduction of information-source-instance

The second change is a technical change resulting from implementation experience, so is a good change, but as it is a substantive technical change the document has to come out of the RFC editor queue to accept it.

Authors= ,
=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0 Can you send out a message summarizing all changes.

We will= then restart the WG LC process.

Thank y= ou,
Lou (as= Shepherd/co-chair)

-------= - Forwarded Message --------
Subject: IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 10:49:31 -0800
From: IETF Secretariat <ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org>
To: lberger@labn.net, teas-chairs@ietf.org= , draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo@ietf.org



The IETF WG state of draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo has been changed to "WG
Document" from "Submitted to IESG for Publication" by = Deborah Brungard:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo/<= br>

_______________________________________________
Teas mailing list
Teas@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
--000000000000468dcf05839a2f06--