TVR (Time-Variant Routing) Use Cases
draft-ietf-tvr-use-cases-09

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, andrew-ietf@liquid.tech, draft-ietf-tvr-use-cases@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, tony.li@tony.li, tvr-chairs@ietf.org, tvr@ietf.org
Subject: Document Action: 'TVR (Time-Variant Routing) Use Cases' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-tvr-use-cases-09.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'TVR (Time-Variant Routing) Use Cases'
  (draft-ietf-tvr-use-cases-09.txt) as Informational RFC

This document is the product of the Time-Variant Routing Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Jim Guichard, Andrew Alston and John Scudder.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tvr-use-cases/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   This document introduces use cases where Time-Variant Routing (TVR)
   computations (i.e. routing computations taking into considerations
   time-based or scheduled changes to a network) could improve routing
   protocol convergence and/or network performance.

Working Group Summary

   Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
   For example, was there controversy about particular points 
   or were there decisions where the consensus was
   particularly rough? 

Solid consensus with no disagreement.

Document Quality

   Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a 
   significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
   implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
   merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
   e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
   conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
   there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
   what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
   Review, on what date was the request posted?

I found this document to be well written and clear.  I did agree with one of the reviews that section 6 should be removed and the initial indications from the authors is that there doesn't seem to be an objection to doing this, hence this document will go on the telechat assuming this will be done before the telechat.

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Tony Li. The Responsible Area
   Director is Andrew Alston.

RFC Editor Note