Subject: Re: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-06.txt

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:06:03 -0500

In message <[email-masked]>
"Joel M. Halpern" writes:
> 
> Hello,
>  
> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. 
> The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related 
> drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and 
> sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide 
> assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing 
> Directorate, please see  
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
>  
> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it 
> would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF 
> Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through 
> discussion or by updating the draft.
>  
> Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-06.txt
>      Advanced Multipath Use Cases and Design Considerations
> Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
> Review Date: 23-January-2015
> IETF LC End Date: N/A
> Intended Status: Informational
>  
> Summary: No issues found. This document is ready for publication.
>  
> Minor note: This draft appears to have expired.

Hello again Joel,

FYI - to the Cc.  I emailed Joel off list about this.  This draft lay
dormant in "AD review" for a long time.  Apparently the AD shepard had
a change of heart about this .. or something.

The draft itself could be described as inconsequential but contains
parts of earlier CL requirements draft and CL framework that more
closely resembled use cases.  This draft exists both to be
informational and to unclutter the requirements and framework.

At this point I can submit another draft.  But ...

I would like to know from the co-authors two things:

  1.  Is there still interest in CL aka Advanced Multipath?
  2.  Any changes in contact information?

I'm particularly interested in whether there is interest at Verizon
since they were the potential user driving this in the first place.
However two of the three Verizon co-authors to the CL drafts are no
longer at Verizon.

No further replies should be interpreted as "no interest" although an
explicit "no interest" would be preferred if that is the case.

If there is interest I'll resubmit this.  If there is still interest
in the framework, we can resurrect that document as well but the
framework needs work and discussion had fallen off to nothing by the
time it expired.

Curtis

---

From: Jeff Tantsura <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 21:30:50 +0000

Hi Curtis,

Please let me know how would you like to proceed with the draft.
If you feel it should progress and since Routing Directorate is done with
no issues found - please resubmit, I¹ll provide writeup and submit to the
IESG.

Thanks!

Cheers,
Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 12:06 PM
To: Joel Halpern <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "<[email-masked]>"
<[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]"
<[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]"
<[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-06.txt

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

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:02:15 -0500

So far I got one message from a co-author and its not encouraging:

  [email-masked]
    (generated from [email-masked])
    SMTP error from remote mail server \
      after RCPT TO:<[email-masked]>:
    host mx5.tatacommunications.com [115.114.148.135]:
    550 #5.1.0 Address rejected.

At best that counts as an address change at least temporarily to
"unknown".

This has been idle for very long.  Lets give it a week or two and if
no responses, then move use-cases and framework to abandoned state.
If there is interest in the topic later, a new individual submission
can be started (possibly just a framework) and the WG can decide if
there is enough interest to make that new draft a WG item.

Curtis

In message <[email-masked]>
Jeff Tantsura writes:
> no issues found - please resubmit, I'll provide writeup and submit to the
> IESG.
>  
> Thanks!
>  
> Cheers,
> Jeff
>  
>  
>  
>

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 13:42:29 -0500

All,

Two weeks would be Feb 26, four days from now.

So far I've only heard from Ning (positive response).  Are the other
co-authors too disinterested to reply?  If so, perhaps at best the
author list needs to be pruned and some names moved to "contributor"
so we don't get hung up later in AUTH48.

At worst, we just say "never mind".  Still waiting to hear from Dave,
Lucy, and Andy.

Curtis

In message <[email-masked]>