Hi Chris
An RFC is surely sufficient to specify the behaviour of the router, and
communicate to others the capability of a product.
If multiple routers needed to act identically across the network I could
see ST as better, but this is really a single router feature.
- Stewart
On 04/06/2017 17:47, Chris Bowers wrote:
As a WG participant, I think standards track makes most sense, since
it specifies a precise behavior for a router under certain
conditions. It is likely that network operators and software
implementers will want to use the document as a means of communicating
about whether or not a given implementation supports that precise
behavior. In my opinion, a standards track document is the best
format to support that interaction.
Chris
*From:*Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:* Saturday, June 3, 2017 6:05 PM
*To:* Chris Bowers <[email protected]>; RTGWG <[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay
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
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
