Dear WG Chairs, I respectfully ask to summarize the comments that were shared with you and to publish them to the WG without naming the authors.
And I have to admit that I don't understand your suggestion to use the Errata. The procedures to apply the Demand mode described in the draft are not in contradiction with RFC 5880, so the suggestion to use Errata surprised me. Regards, Greg On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 2:28 PM Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org> wrote: > Working Group, > > After discussion among the chairs, we have decided to not adopt > draft-mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand at this time. Since the list response to the > adoption were positive, it is necessary to explain some of the reasoning > for > this choice. > > The chairs had private exchanges with individuals that did not wish to > publicly comment on their reasons for not supporting adoption. We have > chosen to consider their comments and accept their reasoning for declining > to publicly comment. > > Additionally, on more thorough review of the proposal by the chairs, it's > our opinion that the core procedures for BFD demand mode are not > necessarily in need of amending in this instance to warrant a new working > group task. Errata would be considered for minor issues, if necessary. > > -- Jeff > > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 06:24:31PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > Working Group, > > > > The BFD chairs have received an adoption request for > > "BFD in Demand Mode over Point-to-Point MPLS LSP" > > (draft-mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand). > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand/ > > > > The adoption call will end on the Friday after IETF 103, November 9. > > > > Note that there is are existing IPR statements on this draft: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3301/ > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3104/ > > > > Please indicate to the mailing list whether you support adoption of this > > draft. > > > > -- Jeff & Reshad > >
