You have to look way back in history (jan 9) for the note, but yup, was sent. (late, I admit, even in the note).
thanks! On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Carlos M. Martinez <[email protected]> wrote: > I support adoption of this draft. > > Sorry for the noise if a decision has already been made (although I > could find any notifications). > > regards > > -Carlos > > On 11/13/14 12:23 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: >> Howdy grow folks, >> During the meeting on Monday Sriram brought up the topic of asking for >> working-group adoption for this draft: >> >> draft-sriram-route-leak-problem-definition >> >> The abstract is: >> " A systemic vulnerability of the Border Gateway Protocol routing >> system, known as 'route leaks', has received significant attention in >> recent years. Frequent incidents that result in significant >> disruptions to Internet routing are labeled "route leaks", but to >> date we have lacked a common definition of the term. In this >> document, we provide a working definition of route leaks, keeping in >> mind the real occurrences that have received significant attention. >> Further, we attempt to enumerate (though not exhaustively) different >> types of route leaks based on observed events on the Internet. We >> aim to provide a taxonomy that covers several forms of route leaks >> that have been observed and are of concern to Internet user community >> as well as the network operator community." >> >> Could we have a 2.5wk (so we don't end mid-week losing half a week to >> the meeting) adoption thought/vote/discussion for this draft in GROW, >> please? >> >> At the mic when asked about this topic there were roughly 20 or so >> folk in favor of adoption, and none opposed to that direction. >> >> -chris >> >> _______________________________________________ >> GROW mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow >> _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
