Hi,
Jim’s memory is correct and the original text is exactly what is intended.
The proposed text is a bit over-ambitious. [MNA-PM-with-AMM] is still very
much a draft and has not been accepted by the working group, and it is not at
all clear that it will eventually become an RFC. Other propo
Hi,
> 1)
I’ll propose: IS-IS, MPLS, Segment routing
> 2)
That’s fine.
> 3)
That’s fine.
> 4)
Plural is fine.
> 5)
All fine.
> 6)
The intent here was to express that scalability is one of the overall goals.
Possible rewording:
NEW TEXT
The goal of the routing archi
> On Jan 21, 2025, at 1:00 PM, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) -
> rfc-ise at rfc-editor.org wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> All good with what Tony wrote, but perhaps here...
>
> On 21.01.2025 21:37, Tony Li wrote:
>> The goal of the routing architecture is to provide an organizational
>>
> On Jan 22, 2025, at 9:24 AM, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) -
> rfc-ise at rfc-editor.org wrote:
>
> I have one more suggestion for Section 2.3, to address inclusive wording:
>
> s/traditional/typical or typical terrestrial/
>
> Tony would one of those work for you?
>
I hav
Hi Sarah,
Please see inline.
> A) Regarding:
>>> 8)
>>
>> Specifically, gateways would be using BGP to advertise the prefixes for the
>> local user stations. As usual, BGP would propagate the information
>> throughout all of the autonomous systems of the entire Internet. I view this
>> as i
Approved
T
> On Jan 23, 2025, at 7:06 AM, Sarah Tarrant - starrant at staff.rfc-editor.org
> wrote:
>
> Hi Tony and Eliot,
>
> Thank you for your replies. We have updated the document accordingly.
>
> Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make
> changes
Approved.
Text changes to follow.
T
> On Jan 16, 2025, at 6:41 PM, rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org
> wrote:
>
> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
> that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
> as all the parties CCed on this mess
Hi Sandy,
I’m fine with that.
T
> On Feb 14, 2025, at 2:12 PM, Sandy Ginoza - sginoza at staff.rfc-editor.org
> wrote:
>
> Greetings all,
>
> Thank you for the explanations - with that in mind, we make a last attempt to
> improve the clarity of this paragraph. The last sentence clarifies
Hi,
> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary)
> the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>
>
> 1)
The ‘Current’ version is fine.
> 2)
Some suggestions: “network function virtualization”, “service chaining”.
The general problem here is
Approved.
T
> On May 20, 2025, at 10:06 AM, Alanna Paloma - apaloma at staff.rfc-editor.org
> wrote:
>
> Hi Matthew,
>
> Thank you for your input. We have updated the files accordingly (see below).
>
> We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status page
> prior to mov
10 matches
Mail list logo
