Hi Robert,
Thanks for your review. As Andy explained, in the Routing Area, there are
multiple points in the process where folks are made aware/reminded of IPR and
we follow RFC6702 suggestions. And for folks not participating actively in the
Working Group, they still have the opportunity at IET
Hi Jari,
Yes, we'll be doing a new revision for addressing other comments.
I've asked for today's telechat if no discusses to mark it as approved, revised
draft needed.
Much thanks Russ for your review!
Deborah
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 3, 2015, at 1:08 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>
> Many t
Hi Brian,
Yes, much thanks for your careful read. I can understand your confusion on our
chosen track as we (authors, chairs, myself) went back and forth on it though
we debated if it should be standards track or BCP (or Applicability Statement).
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/YEv-68
, DEBORAH A
Subject: Re: Post-Telechat update (was Re: Gen-art LC review of
draft-ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis-07)
Hi Carlos.
So I think we are done here. Thanks for doing the last couple of changes.
I won't press you any further on the SHOULD front if everybody else is happy.
As a matter of general prin
Thanks Benoit-
As Loa confirmed, we don't see this as an update. It's aligned with how we have
been doing the MPLS-TP work e.g. RFC7697 has the same wording.
Thanks Brian for the careful review-
Deborah
> -Original Message-
> From: mpls [mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Benoi
Since this is the only fix remaining, I can do it as an editor’s note.
Much thanks Brian for your very careful review and Stewart for sorting out and
holding the pen!
I’ll approve tomorrow (after our holiday here - need to sort out logistics of
hot dogs with lots of toppings currently:-))
Debo
/
Deborah
(AD for detnet)
From: Xavier Vilajosana
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 10:33 AM
To: liubingy...@huawei.com
Cc: Grossman, Ethan A. ; resn...@episteme.net;
draft-ietf-detnet-use-cases.sheph...@ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org; DetNet WG
; BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
Subject: Re: [Detnet
Hi Elwyn, Benjamin,
Much thanks for the careful review!
Ben is correct that an Informational document can be normatively referenced.
There are differences in how the different working groups do references. In
PCE, requirements documents are not usually normatively referenced (e.g. 5540,
8231,
Much thanks Elwyn -
JP - I scanned quickly and they seem to be fair comments - very helpful
as another perspective. The fixes look to be largely descriptive
clarifications and editorial. Can you handle the updates on this
document when the rest of the IESG comments have been received?
Deborah
--
