Stewart, It seems to me that this document is not qualitatively different from the LFA, RLFA, and node-protecting LFA RFCs which were all published as standards track. The behavior of the PLR in those documents is also a local matter, and in principle can be deployed on a single router without the knowledge of the rest of the network (except for allowing establishment of targeted LDP sessions in the case of remote LFA).
Publishing this draft as standards track seems to be consistent with the decision made on those drafts. Chris From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 4:48 AM To: Chris Bowers <[email protected]>; Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]>; RTGWG <[email protected]> Subject: Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay 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:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, June 3, 2017 6:05 PM To: Chris Bowers <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; RTGWG <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Chris Bowers <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Friday, June 2, 2017 at 4:43 PM To: Routing WG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
