I support advancement and publication of this draft. I think we should have the discussion of whether or not it should be standards track, BCP, or informational as invariably this question will arise during all the reviews. Thanks, Acee
From: rtgwg <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Chris Bowers <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Friday, June 2, 2017 at 4:43 PM To: Routing WG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay RTGWG, This email starts the two week WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay/ Please indicate support for or opposition to the publication of this standards track document, along with the reasoning for that support or opposition. IPR: If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to this email stating whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The response needs to be sent to the RTGWG mailing list. The document will not advance to the next stage until a response has been received from each author and each individual that has contributed to the document. The document currently has the following IPR disclosure associated with it. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2565/ This last call will end on Friday June 16th. Thanks, Chris and Jeff
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
