Thanks, Michael. Yes, Wednesday sounds good. And thanks, Guy for the -09.
Joe On 4/21/25, 10:57, "Michael Richardson" <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> wrote: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com<mailto:jcla...@cisco.com>> wrote: > I see that you submitted a new revision over the weekend that addresses > the nits around 2119 and the references. However, it raised two > others. You reference both RFC1051 and 1201 (do you need the former if I don't think so, so I'll remove it. Updates thanks to Guy's hard work on this. Guy also fixed most of the things at id-nits complained about. > you have the latter?), and there is an unused reference on STANAG-5066. Thanks for catching that. > At least the latter should be fixed, but you may have a reason for the > former. > I want to submit this to IESG by Friday. Can you address these > remaining two nits by then? Thanks. Fixed. I'll hold off posting a new version until Wednesday, to see if there are additional comments. -- Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca<mailto:mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
