OK, thanks. I think that those updates take care of most things for me. I still think that this is not really an *update* to RFC 6514; it's an alternative solution. But that's a minor issue, so when I am asked to re-review this for the telechat I will rate it "Ready".
BTW I got a horrible bounce message from the Juniper mail system, as it seems that Yakov's address fails. Regards Brian On 01/10/2015 06:56, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang wrote: > I am the one to blame. Alvaro had all the reasons to believe I'd addressed > his comments (I shared a diff), but then I had a second thought one issue and > did not continue with the submission. > > I have now submitted a new revision: > > URL: > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-bidir-ingress-replication-03.txt > Status: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-bidir-ingress-replication/ > Htmlized: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-bidir-ingress-replication-03 > Diff: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-bidir-ingress-replication-03 > > Thanks! > Jeffrey > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Alvaro Retana (aretana) [mailto:aret...@cisco.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 12:10 AM >> To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>; draft-ietf-bess-mvpn- >> bidir-ingress-replication....@ietf.org; General Area Review Team <gen- >> a...@ietf.org> >> Subject: Re: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-bidir- >> ingress-replication-02 >> >> On 9/29/15, 9:50 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Brian: >> >>> The AD Review asks for a number of changes. To be frank, it's a bit >>> annoying >>> to be asked to do a review of a draft that will change during the Last >>> Call. >> >> Yes, I apologize. The authors had the revision ready on Sep/25, but it >> wasn¹t submitted. :-( >> >> Thanks! >> >> Alvaro. > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
