Hi Stephane, I neglected to note that you are an author on the document ;^). Clearly, we should drop it if the authors do not want to complete it or believe there is significant work remaining to complete it. BTW, here is a URL to the IESG statement I referenced below:
https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/writable-mib-module.html Thanks, Acee From: rtgwg <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Acee Lindem <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Monday, February 22, 2016 at 7:46 AM To: Stephane Litkowski <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Routing WG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: poll on draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-ip-mib-08 Hi Stephane, From: Stephane Litkowski <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Monday, February 22, 2016 at 6:17 AM To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Routing WG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: poll on draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-ip-mib-08 Hi Acee, The main question behind : is there any interest for vendors to implement it and operators to use it ? Or : Are people more focused now on YANG and so it’s better to convert this work into a YANG work ? (note that we already embed some FRR informations in IGP models but it’s not 100% mapped to this MIB proposal). YANG is clearly the direction to replace MIBs as formally stated by the IESG at 1-2 years ago. The argument for completion is that we started the work many years ago and, if it is ready for publication, why not go ahead. OTH, if there are no implementations or plans for implementation then maybe it is best to simply drop it. Thanks, Acee Best Regards, Stephane From: rtgwg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 19:17 To: Jeff Tantsura; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: poll on draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-ip-mib-08 Hey Jeff, I say that if the authors are committed, we go ahead and complete it. If not, we drop it. Thanks, Acee From: rtgwg <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Friday, February 12, 2016 at 1:12 PM To: Routing WG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: poll on draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-ip-mib-08 Dear RTGWG, We are considering further progress of draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-ip-mib-08 and would like to poll the wg to see whether there’s enough interest to proceed with this work, i.e. WGLC. Please respond, especially if you feel this work has to continue, also - please let us know if there are any existing implementations. Many thanks and see you in Buenos Aires. Jeff & Chris _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
