All, Two weeks would be Feb 26, four days from now.
So far I've only heard from Ning (positive response). Are the other co-authors too disinterested to reply? If so, perhaps at best the author list needs to be pruned and some names moved to "contributor" so we don't get hung up later in AUTH48. At worst, we just say "never mind". Still waiting to hear from Dave, Lucy, and Andy. Curtis In message <[email protected]> Curtis Villamizar writes: > > So far I got one message from a co-author and its not encouraging: > > [email protected] > (generated from [email protected]) > SMTP error from remote mail server \ > after RCPT TO:<[email protected]>: > host mx5.tatacommunications.com [115.114.148.135]: > 550 #5.1.0 Address rejected. > > At best that counts as an address change at least temporarily to > "unknown". > > This has been idle for very long. Lets give it a week or two and if > no responses, then move use-cases and framework to abandoned state. > If there is interest in the topic later, a new individual submission > can be started (possibly just a framework) and the WG can decide if > there is enough interest to make that new draft a WG item. > > Curtis > > > In message <d10108c4.8db10%[email protected]> > Jeff Tantsura writes: > > > > Hi Curtis, > > > > Please let me know how would you like to proceed with the draft. > > If you feel it should progress and since Routing Directorate is done with > > no issues found - please resubmit, I'll provide writeup and submit to the > > IESG. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Cheers, > > Jeff > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Curtis Villamizar <[email protected]> > > Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 12:06 PM > > To: Joel Halpern <[email protected]> > > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "<[email protected]>" > > <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > > <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > > <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-06.txt > > > > >In message <[email protected]> > > >"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 > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >rtgwg mailing list > > >[email protected] > > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
