Les,
Perfectly fine by me. That suggestion was something that came up just
reading through the abstract and was meant for someone who was reading that
paragraph alone. It does become clear later that it must be per TLV based on
the main body text.
-Peter
On 3/4/25, 4:
Peter -
Thanx very much for your review.
I have made all the suggested editorial changes except one.
I will upload V11 of the draft once the submission window reopens on March 16.
Regarding your first comment:
> Page 1, Abstract, 1st sentence: I’d append “per TLV” at the end of the
> sentence
Reviewer: Behcet Sarikaya
Review result: Ready with Nits
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For mo
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review result: Ready with Nits
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more inf
Hi, Peter:Would you like to review https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-unsolved-challenge-of-mp-tlv/ to find out some “Major Issues” that are related this document?It doesn’t need the solid background of IS-IS to get the key challenges that are existing in the document.Or. Would you lik
