Note that since this correction is pretty straightforward, our intension is to start the WG last call at the end of next week. Thanks, Acee
From: Lsr <[email protected]> on behalf of Acee Lindem <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 3:16 PM To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption call for "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions" - draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00 Hi Les, Yes – please reissue the draft using the agreed upon naming convention. Thanks, Acee From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 2:37 PM To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: RE: LSR WG Adoption call for "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions" - draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00 WG chairs – It has been more than 2 weeks since adoption call was initiated and support has been expressed on the list – w no objections. Can we consider WG adoption complete? Can I issue a WG version of the draft? Thanx. Les From: Lsr <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 12:20 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [Lsr] LSR WG Adoption call for "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions" - draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-00 This draft simply fixes a problem in RFC 7810 that resulted in an incompatibility issue with implementations. Given the simplicity of this document, I’d like to have an abbreviated WG adoption call of one week. Please indicate your support or objections to this document by April 17th, 2018. Thanks, Acee
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
