I have refreshed the draft.
A couple of minor changes, that will not impact the review:
1) Fixed Mike's affiliation and email address
2) Fixed Ning's email address (need to fix his affiliation when I know
what to put in)
3) Fixed a formatting error (section 8 was not shown as a proper section)
Any other changes are an error caused in the process of recovering the
correct XML.
Stewart
(as duty editor)
On 31/05/2012 15:18, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Just a personal (non AD comment).
I would prefer that polls were conducted on extant I-Ds, not ones that have
expired.
Cheers,
Adrian
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Alia Atlas
Sent: 30 May 2012 17:59
To: [email protected]
Subject: opinions on adoption of draft-shand-remote-lfa as a WG draft
draft-shand-remote-lfa was presented favorably this last IETF. There
is known IPR
associated with it on file ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1770/ )
This draft presents
a solution for IP/LDP fast-reroute that does not guarantee 100%
coverage but can substantially
improve coverage over LFAs.
We would like to initiate a WG poll to determine whether to adopt
draft-shand-remote-lfa.
We are, of course, interested in opinions and reasoning rather than
simple yes/no.
Thanks,
Alia
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
--
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
