Mahesh, As I understand it, the authors eventually want this draft to be adopted by the RTGWG. This makes sense because it includes VRRP protocol extensions, so it would normally go to the VRRP WG. Since the VRRP WG is concluded, the RTGWG is a reasonable place to do this work.
One might also consider doing this work in the BFD WG to take advantage of the concentration of BFD expertise there. However, since the main content of the document deals with VRRP behavior and defining a new VRRP packet type, it seems like it might be a diversion from the main work of the BFD WG. If the RTGWG does adopt the draft, the name of the adopted draft should start with draft-ietf-rtgwg (as you point out, following RFC7221). As an individual submission at this point, there are no hard requirements on the name of the draft, except that it not start with draft-ietf. However, when authors are submitting drafts that they intend to eventually be considered for adoption by the RTGWG, it is quite useful to name them draft-authorname-rtgwg-yyyy, so that they automatically show up at https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/rtgwg/documents/ at the bottom under the header of “Related Internet-Drafts”. Thanks, Chris From: rtgwg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mahesh Jethanandani Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2016 10:11 PM To: Nitish Gupta (nitisgup) <[email protected]> Cc: Jeff Haas <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Aditya Dogra (addogra) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-02.txt Shouldn’t the draft be named draft-nitish-bfd-vrrp or something like that to follow the naming convention described in RFC 7221? On Oct 25, 2015, at 11:27 PM, Nitish Gupta (nitisgup) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi, We have submitted a new version of the draft. As discussed in IETF 93 at prague. We have merged the following drafts: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-01 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-bfd-p2mp-vrrp-use-case-00 We have also taken care of all the comments that were discussed in the RTGWG meeting. We welcome any comments and suggestions on the draft. Thanks, Nitish On 13/10/15 9:09 pm, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: A new version of I-D, draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-02.txt has been successfully submitted by Nitish Gupta and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd Revision: 02 Title: Fast failure detection in VRRP with BFD Document date: 2015-10-13 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 10 URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-02.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd/ Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-02 Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-nitish-vrrp-bfd-02 Abstract: This document describes how Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) can be used to support sub-second detection of a Master Router failure in the Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP). Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. The IETF Secretariat Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
