Subject: Request to be removed from the list of co-authors

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 09:01:24 -0700

Dear Authors, WG Chairs, et al.,
my request may sound unusual at first so I'll try to explain how and why
I've decided to do it.
Firstly, after the part that defines the use of p2mp BFD (now RFC 8562) was
removed because of IPR concerns, there's no substantive contribution of
mine in the document. Secondly, I believe that the use of RFC 8562 to
support sub-second convergence in VRRP is simpler, easier to deploy than
the one based on RFC 5880  And lastly, the draft expired and had not been
progressed in quite some time.
In case RTGWG WG will be interested in developing the solution based on RFC
8562 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mirsky-bfd-p2mp-vrrp-use-case/>,
authors are ready and committed to working on it.

Regards,
Greg

---

From: Chris Bowers <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 12:06:33 -0500

Greg,
I think that your request can be honored.  Assuming that the draft
progresses at some point in the future, I would still request that you
respond to the IPR poll along with the authors and contributors.
Thanks,
Chris

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 11:01 AM Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Firstly, after the part that defines the use of p2mp BFD (now RFC 8562)
> was removed because of IPR concerns, there's no substantive contribution of
> In case RTGWG WG will be interested in developing the solution based on
> RFC 8562
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mirsky-bfd-p2mp-vrrp-use-case/>,