Subject: Re: WG Adoption request for draft-mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 17:27:55 -0500

Working Group,

After discussion among the chairs, we have decided to not adopt
draft-mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand at this time.  Since the list response to the
adoption were positive, it is necessary to explain some of the reasoning for
this choice.

The chairs had private exchanges with individuals that did not wish to
publicly comment on their reasons for not supporting adoption.  We have
chosen to consider their comments and accept their reasoning for declining
to publicly comment.

Additionally, on more thorough review of the proposal by the chairs, it's
our opinion that the core procedures for BFD demand mode are not
necessarily in need of amending in this instance to warrant a new working
group task.  Errata would be considered for minor issues, if necessary.

-- Jeff

On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 06:24:31PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> Working Group,
> 
> The BFD chairs have received an adoption request for 
> "BFD in Demand Mode over Point-to-Point MPLS LSP"
> (draft-mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand).
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand/
> 
> The adoption call will end on the Friday after IETF 103, November 9.
> 
> Note that there is are existing IPR statements on this draft:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3301/
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3104/
> 
> Please indicate to the mailing list whether you support adoption of this
> draft.
> 
> -- Jeff & Reshad

---

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 14:40:50 -0800

Dear WG Chairs,
I respectfully ask to summarize the comments that were shared with you and
to publish them to the WG without naming the authors.

And I have to admit that I don't understand your suggestion to use the
Errata. The procedures to apply the Demand mode described in the draft are
not in contradiction with RFC 5880, so the suggestion to use Errata
surprised me.

Regards,
Greg