Alvaro – Comments inline.
From: Alvaro Retana <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 2:38 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: AD Review of draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis-02 Dear authors: Thanks for taking on this work!! I have just a couple of comments. (1) There are too many authors in the front page. I know that the list was cut prior to rfc7810 being processed, and that Les was added to hold the pen on this revision, so I'll let this one proceed. Just one thing: please group the authors by affiliation (which will reduce the size of the header). [Les:] Given that it is customary to list the editors first, I find it awkward to do this. (2) Both rfc7471 and rfc7810 can be Informative references. [Les:] I find this request a bit odd. RFC7810 would certainly seem to be a normative reference as 99% of the text in the bis version is taken verbatim from RFC 7810. RFC7471 is referenced only in the Appendix, but still – it is the consistency in language between the two documents which is one of the motivations for changes. This seems pretty essential to me. ??? (3) There's an active thread related to the definition of Available Bandwidth [1]. Please keep an eye on it and participate as needed. [Les:] V3 of this draft has been published addressing this point. If you agree with my comments above there is then no need for any additional changes. Les I don't think the ongoing discussion is a showstopper at this point. I am starting the IETF Last Call. Thanks! Alvaro. [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/zOdpuIbCViJToCsC9mNnRmoEiQw
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
