RTGWG, This WG adoption poll ended last Friday.
One author and one non-author expressed support for adoption, while no one expressed opposition to adoption. This adoption poll did not produce any discussion or detailed feedback from anyone about the draft itself. I think there needs to be more technical discussion about the mechanism proposed in this draft on the RTGWG list before consensus can be judged either way. I would encourage anyone interested in working on the mechanism proposed in this draft to provide detailed feedback on the list. Thanks, Chris On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:46 AM, Chris Bowers <[email protected]> wrote: > RTGWG, > > The authors of draft-mirsky-bfd-p2mp-vrrp-use-case have requested > that RTGWG adopt this draft as a WG document. > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mirsky-bfd-p2mp-vrrp-use-case/ > > Please indicate whether or not you support adoption of the draft > as a WG document. An explanation of why or why not is also very helpful. > > The two authors have already indicated that they know of no relevant IPR > other than what has already been disclosed. The draft has two IPR > disclosures. > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3133/ > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3135/ > > For some history related to this draft, please see: > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtgwg/current/msg06572.html > > For information about IPR in IETF technology, see RFC 8179. > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8179/ > > Note that one of the basic principles regarding how the IETF deals with > IPR claims (from RFC 8179) > is that: "The IETF will make no determination about the validity of any > particular IPR claim." > > Since Jeff Tantsura is a co-author, he will not be involved in judging > consensus. > > The closing date for this poll is Friday, July 6th. > > Thanks, > Chris > > > > >
