Hi Christer,
Thanks for the rewiew. v12 of the drafts should solve your comments.
General:
---
Q_G_1: The document says "ITU-T recommendation G.XXX", "ITU-T
G.XXX", and "G.XXX". Please use consistent terminology.
Authors> ITU-T recommendation G.XXX used o
Hi Robert,
Many thanks for your review. Please find comments/replies in line.
BR
Daniele (& co-authors)
From: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjspa...@nostrum.com]
Sent: venerdì 11 ottobre 2013 17:16
To: General Area Review Team; cc...@ietf.org;
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g70...@tools.ietf.org
Subject:
n -11. But maybe I
missed it. Has that been incorporated to the latest version? (I thought your
text suggestion looked fine.)
Jari
On Oct 15, 2013, at 5:21 AM, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> Many thanks for your review. Please find comments/replies in line.
>
>
Hi Robert,
Thanks for the careful review and your comments.
I pretty much agree with Adrian's reply but I think explicitly having some
backward compatibility text in the draft could be helpful.
Adrian, authors, I'd suggest changing section 5 from "Manageability
Considerations" to "Backward Co
flexi grid but for the time being let's be on the safe side and address the
compatibility issue as you're suggesting.
Cheers,
Daniele
> -Original Message-
> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk]
> Sent: martedì 8 settembre 2015 18:02
> To: Daniele Cecca
:julien.meu...@orange.com]
> Sent: mercoledì 9 settembre 2015 10:53
> To: Daniele Ceccarelli; adr...@olddog.co.uk; 'Adrian Farrel'; 'Robert Sparks';
> draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-la...@ietf.org; cc...@ietf.org; 'General
> Area Review Team'; i...@ietf.org
>
Hi Jouni,
Thanks a lot for your review and your thoughts. I tend to agree with you,
publishing a document referencing a future one doesn't make much sense.
We had a long discussion inside the WG on how to progress this draft with many
alternative options and this one happened to be the less pain
Hi Jari, Pete,
First of all thanks for the accurate review.
All the nits/editorial comments are correct and will be fixed.
Regarding the minor issue:
> 4.1.1:
>
> The figure is a bit confusing: There might not exist a "Max Slot Width at
> Priority
> 7" if bit 7 is clear in the Priority field
Hi Pete,
We’re getting there.
Please see in line for further explanation.
Thanks a lot
Daniele
From: Pete Resnick [mailto:presn...@qti.qualcomm.com]
Sent: lunedì 6 febbraio 2017 18:38
To: Daniele Ceccarelli
Cc: Jari Arkko ; gen-art@ietf.org;
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext
doesn't need to
>say anything about local configurations.
For me it’s ok not to say anything on that.
Thanks
Daniele
From: Pete Resnick [mailto:presn...@qti.qualcomm.com]
Sent: martedì 7 febbraio 2017 18:05
To: Daniele Ceccarelli
Cc: Jari Arkko ; gen-art@ietf.org;
draft-ietf-ccamp-f
Gone! ☺
Thanks to you for the careful review.
BR
Daniele
From: Pete Resnick [mailto:presn...@qti.qualcomm.com]
Sent: giovedì 9 febbraio 2017 01:08
To: Daniele Ceccarelli
Cc: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext@ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org;
cc...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen
11 matches
Mail list logo
