Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages (11/12 to 11/26)

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:47:25 -0500

Greetings:

I did my investigating on the WG LC call for
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages that occurred during 11/12 to 11/26.
I have good news and bad news. 

First of all the good news -  I want to congratulate the authors on an
extremely creative discussion.  I am pleased to see so many implementations
and rapid response.   As a chair, this puts a draft up higher in my queue. 

Second the bad news, my review of the mail list (and what the ADs will see)
is that we did not really demonstrate consensus regarding the draft.  I
think it is there - - but I could not tell.  John had the same response when
he reviewed the mail list in December.  John was going to post something
then - but I suspect his queue got overloaded at work/home. 

Therefore, what I plan to start a 1 week extension to the WG LC.  If there
is substantive debate, we will extend the WG LC a second week.  I've used
this method in other WGs (TRILL and I2RS) when we've been talking about a
draft for a long time. 

Cheerily, Susan Hares 

-----Original Message-----
From: Susan Hares [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 4:16 AM
To: 'Job Snijders'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages
(11/12 to 11/26)

Thanks for the reminder.    I will respond in a few hours.   I'm digging
through the email. 
 
Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: Job Snijders [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 9:23 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG Last Call foir draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages
(11/12 to 11/26)

(offlist)

Dear chairs,

Can a conclusion be drawn from the last call?

Kind regards,

Job