Hi Alvaro, I support adoption of the draft as it provides base for number of solutions we (rtgwg) have been building using mrt.
Cheers, Jeff From: Alvaro Retana <aret...@cisco.com<mailto:aret...@cisco.com>> Date: Tuesday, October 8, 2013 11:23 AM To: "rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>" <rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: WG Adoption of MRT Algorithms Draft (draft-enyedi-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm) On 9/27/13 8:53 AM, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aret...@cisco.com<mailto:aret...@cisco.com>> wrote: Hi! Thanks to all who have replied to this call! However, I think I probably wasn't clear when I wrote: We want to hear from people who have read and understood the draft (besides the authors!) about this topic. Please provide some explanation as to why you support or not the adoption of the draft — avoid "+1". As you express your support (or not) for the draft, please explain why you are supporting it (or not). In the original message I explained how not many people who attended the meeting in Berlin seemed to have reviewed the draft to be able to gather any type of indication of support (or not) at the time. That is one of the reasons why we want to gather information beyond just "support" (or not). Another reason is that since the original publication of the draft I haven't been able to find comments on the list about it. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtgwg/current/msg03435.html Maybe lots of people have provided comments directly to the authors, which is great! But for the rest of us is not clear. Thanks! Alvaro.
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list rtgwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
