• Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG
  • Awaiting Expert Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
  • Awaiting External Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
  • Awaiting Merge with Other Document
  • Author or Editor Needed
  • Waiting for Referenced Document
  • Waiting for Referencing Document
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by IESG
  • Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway
  • Other - see Comment Log

IETF :: rtgwg

Current state: Submitted to IESG for Publication

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.

2013-05-03 06:33 Adrian Farrel

Moving this document to revised I-D needed. I really don't see why the author's unresponsiveness should be counted in the statistics as the AD's poor performance.

2013-05-03 06:33 Adrian Farrel

State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed

2013-02-07 10:22 Amy Vezza

State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation

2013-02-07 10:22 Amy Vezza

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Pete Resnick has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Amy Vezza

2013-02-07 09:19 Ralph Droms

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ralph Droms

2013-02-07 07:48 Pete Resnick

[Ballot discuss]
I'd like to at least spend a few minutes during the telechat diving into Brian's comment in his ballot: Why are these being published as WG items? Was the WG working on something that they thought was going to end up as a standards track document but ended up with a lot of output and nothing they could standardize? Is that worth publishing? The writeup is exceedingly thin on this point. I'm not at all sure what the "subtleties involved" have to do with the desire to publish.

2013-02-07 07:48 Pete Resnick

[Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Pete Resnick

2013-02-07 04:40 Benoit Claise

[Ballot comment]
-

the mechanism -> the mechanisms

-
It is assumed in the description that follows that all routers in the
routing domain are oFIB capable. This can be verified in an
operation network by the routers reporting oFIB capability using the
IGP in use. Where non-oFIB capable routers exist in the network,
normal convergence would be used.

I guess you mean
Where non-oFIB capable routers exist in the network,
normal convergence would be used in all routers.

Otherwise, it contradicts the first sentence

2013-02-07 04:40 Benoit Claise

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Benoit Claise has been changed to No Objection from Discuss

2013-02-06 19:19 Wesley Eddy

[Ballot comment]
It seems interesting, but I'm confused why if it works so well in simulations, that nobody seems interested in going further with this. What's the value of an IETF RFC versus other types of publication, given that there's IPR attached to this as an Informational document? It's clearly informative, but I get the feeling that there's more information that must not be clear in the writing at the moment about what the ultimate goal is.

2013-02-06 19:19 Wesley Eddy

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Wesley Eddy

2013-02-06 14:27 Gonzalo Camarillo

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo

2013-02-06 13:38 Martin Stiemerling

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling

2013-02-06 12:22 Russ Housley

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley

2013-02-06 09:23 Adrian Farrel

Ballot writeup was changed

2013-02-06 06:17 Robert Sparks

[Ballot comment]
Please see my comment on draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-notvia-addresses. It applies equally to this document.

2013-02-06 06:17 Robert Sparks

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Sparks

2013-02-05 16:02 Stephen Farrell

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell

2013-02-05 14:51 Sean Turner

[Ballot comment]
I am balloting No Objection based on my unenlightened read and the support of the Sponsoring AD.

2013-02-05 14:51 Sean Turner

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.