> On Apr 11, 2016, at 2:36 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <aret...@cisco.com> > wrote: > > On 4/11/16, 12:30 PM, "Jeffrey Haas" <jh...@pfrc.org> wrote: > > Hi! > >> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 02:54:06PM +0000, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) >> wrote: >>> Dan, >>> >>> Many thanks for this review! >>> >>> You raise two good questions, here¹s my take: >>> I do not have a strong opinion one way or another ‹ I will leave this >>> one to the AD¹s guidance, and I am happy to mark this document as >>> updating RFC 5881 if that¹s the preferred direction. >>> Indeed ‹ fixed in our working copy. >> >> I'm of mixed opinion to mark it as updating. The bulk of the >> functionality >> is separate procedures from RFC 5881. The only thing that is updated is >> the >> echo port, which 5881 leaves very much out of scope for what is carried on >> that port. >> >> I agree that it's worth leaving the final call to Álvaro. > > I don't think this document needs to be marked as updating 5881 because it > doesn't change the procedures from that RFC, it enhances/extends with > optional functionality (I.e. What is specified here is not needed for 5881 > implementations to interoperate). >
Works for me — agreed. Thanks, — Carlos. > Thanks! > > Alvaro. >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
