Thanks a lot for the review
The document specifies externally visible behavior that must be
implemented by routers, otherwise SR and LDP routers cannot talk to each
other. For example, section 4.2.2 specifies preference rules. Another
example is the last two paragraphs in section 4.2.1. Hence
the SRMS, the status as PS makes good
sense.
Yours,
Joel
On 5/21/18 11:45 AM, Ahmed Bashandy wrote:
Thanks a lot for the review
The document specifies externally visible behavior that must be
implemented by routers, otherwise SR and LDP routers cannot talk to
each other. For example, section
Thanks a lot for the comments
I do not need to publish a new version
So I would take your advice of leaving the editorial comments to the RFC
editor
Thanks
Ahmed
On 3/7/19 6:57 AM, Francis Dupont wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-A
Thanks a lot for the detailed comments.
I will address them shortly
Ahmed
On 1/10/21 1:48 PM, Theresa Enghardt via Datatracker wrote:
Reviewer: Theresa Enghardt
Review result: Ready with Issues
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews
Sorry for the late reply.
See response inline #Ahmed. . The response refers to version 15 which I
just published to address your comments as well as other reviewers comments
Thanks
Ahmed
On 1/10/21 1:48 PM, Theresa Enghardt via Datatracker wrote:
Reviewer: Theresa Enghardt
Review result: R
For the comment about the IPR, the IPR for the draft at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa
says that draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa has replaced the
individual draft
Thanks
Ahmed
On 3/2/24 1:50 AM, Roni Even via Datat
