I will accept whatever the consensus is.
- Stewart
On 05/06/2017 16:22, Chris Bowers wrote:
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
