Subject: [Idr] Request for WG adoption of draft-rosen-idr-rtc-no-rt

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:08:18 -0400

IETF-90 was a fun time for RFC 4684 since it had three different drafts
presented to cover various errata we've seen in the field.  A question I
asked at the microphone was whether we should try to centralize these in
order to do a 4684-bis.  That question didn't receive much of a favorable
response.

Eric also points out that we probably want to allow these issues to progress
separably in order to allow them to be published as we work out the issues,
rather than gating them all together.

Thus, I'd like to request the Working Group to adop
draft-rosen-idr-rtc-no-rtc.  I think this document already has good consenus
among several implementors and covers a very simple problem with a simple
solution.

-- Jeff

---

From: Robert Raszuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 22:11:15 +0200

As co-author and in fact someone who in fact proposed this solution as a
way out of the issue of lack of default action for those prefixes where RTC
is enabled and there is no RT attached I support its adoption and perhaps
very soon last call.

best,
r.

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]> wrote:

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