Hi Curtis, Please let me know how would you like to proceed with the draft. If you feel it should progress and since Routing Directorate is done with no issues found - please resubmit, I¹ll provide writeup and submit to the IESG.
Thanks! Cheers, Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Curtis Villamizar <[email protected]> Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 12:06 PM To: Joel Halpern <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "<[email protected]>" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-06.txt >In message <[email protected]> >"Joel M. Halpern" writes: >> >> Hello, >> >> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this >>draft. >> The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related >> drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and >> sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide >> assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing >> Directorate, please see >> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir >> >> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, >>it >> would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF >> Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through >> discussion or by updating the draft. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-06.txt >> Advanced Multipath Use Cases and Design Considerations >> Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern >> Review Date: 23-January-2015 >> IETF LC End Date: N/A >> Intended Status: Informational >> >> Summary: No issues found. This document is ready for publication. >> >> Minor note: This draft appears to have expired. > > >Hello again Joel, > >FYI - to the Cc. I emailed Joel off list about this. This draft lay >dormant in "AD review" for a long time. Apparently the AD shepard had >a change of heart about this .. or something. > >The draft itself could be described as inconsequential but contains >parts of earlier CL requirements draft and CL framework that more >closely resembled use cases. This draft exists both to be >informational and to unclutter the requirements and framework. > >At this point I can submit another draft. But ... > >I would like to know from the co-authors two things: > > 1. Is there still interest in CL aka Advanced Multipath? > 2. Any changes in contact information? > >I'm particularly interested in whether there is interest at Verizon >since they were the potential user driving this in the first place. >However two of the three Verizon co-authors to the CL drafts are no >longer at Verizon. > >No further replies should be interpreted as "no interest" although an >explicit "no interest" would be preferred if that is the case. > >If there is interest I'll resubmit this. If there is still interest >in the framework, we can resurrect that document as well but the >framework needs work and discussion had fallen off to nothing by the >time it expired. > >Curtis > >_______________________________________________ >rtgwg mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
