Subject: [mpls] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 12:22:07 +0200

Working Group,

This is to start a two week working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-
rfc6374-udp-return-path.

Please send your comments to the mpls wg mailing list ([email-masked]).

An IPR poll has been completed before the wglc, all co-authors has
stated that they are unaware of any IPRs that relates to this document.

This working group last call ends September 19, 2015.

For this document we would like to add a few comments/concerns.

As working group chairs.

This document was accept as working group document in August
2014, there has been four versions since it became a working group
draft. I changes are not critical, but there are a number of them. Since 
we accepted the document there has been no discussion on the list.

In particular there is a section (part of 3.1) that the RFC Editor is
(correctly) requested to remove before publication. This section
discusses alternatives to the solution the author choose. As far as we
can see there has been no discussion on the mailing on the alternatives
on the mailing list after the draft became a working group document.

For those reason we would like to solicit careful reviews during the
working group last and explicit comments of the section to be removed.

An individual comment.

I have reviewed the document and sent comments (mostly nits) to the
authors I believe the document is in pretty good shape. I have no
concerns on the document as such, more that I don't have proof of
working group support and engagement.

/Loa
for the mpls wg co-chairs

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: [email-masked]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [email-masked]
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 09:28:02 -0400

Loa,

I just read the draft, and found it straightforward and to the point. The
functionality adds useful flexibility to the collection of MPLS PLDM
results, and I agree with the chosen TLV encoding. I support its
publication.

Cheers,
Andy

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Loa Andersson <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>

---

From: Nobo Akiya <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 17:19:10 +0900

Hi Loa,

Yes/support, as this document defines a useful extensions to RFC6374.

Regards,
Nobo

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:04:20 +0800

Working Group,

This working last call has concluded, we only have supportive comments.

Authors,

Can you plese verify that you want to go ahead and request publication
for the current version (or make necessary updates and repost a new
version).

/Loa
mpls wg co-chair

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 09:42:09 +0100

I know of no changes needed to the current version.

- Stewart

-- 
For corporate legal information go to:

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html