Dear WG, >From a multicast POV I support this work to be adopted. Being able to build >two non-intersection paths through a single plane network is very useful for >Multicast live-live and MoFRR deployments. It solves a real problem which we >see in today's networks.
A more challenging question to answer is how draft-enyedi-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm relates to draft-thubert-rtgwg-arc-00 and draft-thubert-rtgwg-arc-bicast-00. I don't know if both can move forward individually or if some merge is possible. It would be good if the authors get together and discuss this. Thx, Ice. On 27 Sep 2013, at 14:53, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi! > > This message starts a two-week Call for WG Adoption for 'Algorithms for > computing Maximally Redundant Trees for IP/LDP Fast-Reroute' > (draft-enyedi-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm). > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-enyedi-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm > > At the meeting in Berlin the authors asked for the WG adoption of their > draft, but here were very few people in the room who had actually reviewed > the document to get any type of read of the room. > > We want to hear from people who have read and understood the draft (besides > the authors!) about this topic. Please provide some explanation as to why > you support or not the adoption of the draft — avoid "+1". > > This call will be over by EOD on Oct/11, 2013 (pick your favorite time zone). > > Thanks!! > > Alvaro. > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
