we had only 2 notes about it, both positive.... could we have a little more chat about it pls? 2 people is not necessarily a consensus...
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: > Chairs, > > What is the status of route-server-operations draft ? We had some > acceptances in the GROW WG meeting and on the list before, but we never saw > official approvals to resubmit as official GROW WG document. > > Many thx, > R. > > >> Hi Chris, GROW, >> >> I'd like to voice my support for this draft's adoption by GROW - it >> seems to me that there are particular complexities of operating route >> servers at IXPs well, and their stability and functionality is of >> particular interest to Internet network operators - making this draft >> very relevant for this group. >> >> Kind regards, r. >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On 17 Nov 2011, at 07:55, "Christopher >> Morrow"<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Pursuant to the WG meeting discussion, this is a split part of the >>> original routeservers document, we'd like to poll the group for WG >>> Adoption at this time. >>> >>> >>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html?draft=draft-hilliard-ix-bgp-route-server-operations> >>> >>> >>> > Please have a read through and let us know on-list about applicability >>> >>> to this group in particular. Call closes 12/01/2011 (dec 01 2011 >>> for the non-us-based folks) >>> >>> -Chris (co-chair) _______________________________________________ >>> GROW mailing list [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow > > _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
