Hi Stewart, I agree. We would not progress this document prior to the RTGWG progression of the base MRT documents. Also, if the RTGWG documents change status, then we¹d expect the companion OSPF document to also change status. Thanks, Acee
On 11/3/14, 12:01 PM, "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" <stbry...@cisco.com> wrote: >On 03/11/2014 14:20, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: >> The base MRT specifications are rtgwg WG documents. Additionally, this >> document now uses the OSPFv2 link extensions that we have converged upon >> for OSPFv2 protocol extension. Hence, the chairs believe this document >>is >> ready for a WG adoption poll. >> >> Please indicate your support (or concerns) for adopting this as a WG >> Document. >> >> Regards, >> -Abhay >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OSPF mailing list >> OSPF@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >> >A comment that I made over on the MPLS list. > >I am not convinced that MRT has the degree of maturity that we would >normally >require for a routing protocol intended for deployment as part of a major >IGP. This is obviously a discussion that needs to happen in RTGWG. > >I would therefore suggest that whilst the WG may adopt this component >draft, it needs to sequence publication behind a number of the main MRT >drafts and set the track accordingly. > >- Stewart > > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
