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
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:
Reviewer: Mike Ounsworth
Review result: Ready
Draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-flags-06
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
s
Speaking as WG member:
I support adoption.
With respect to acquiring the remote ID, I don't believe that LLDP include the
remote ID. There is a port ID but I believe this is an L2 construct. If you're
going to reference LLDP, you should add it to the "LLDP IETF Organizationally
Specific TLV"
Hi Mike,
Speaking as document shepherd and LSR Co-Chair.
> On Mar 4, 2025, at 4:23 PM, Mike Ounsworth via Datatracker
> wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Mike Ounsworth
> Review result: Ready
>
> Draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-flags-06
>
> I have reviewed this document as part of the security direc
Hi WG,
I support the adoption of this draft.
It is well-suited for multicast scenarios, such as those where PIM operates
alongside Flex-Algo.
Thanks,
Changwang
发件人: Acee Lindem
发送时间: 2025年3月2日 21:52
收件人: lsr
抄送: draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-reverse-spf-a...@ietf.org
主题: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll f
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
Acee -
IEEE Std 802.1AB-2016 Figure 8-11 has exactly what we need.
In particular:
8.5.9.5 interface numbering subtype
The interface numbering subtype field shall contain an integer value indicating
the numbering method used
for defining the interface number. The following three values are
Speaking as WG member:
I support adoption. However, it seems this draft could have been combined with
the draft defining the flex-algo constraints for the reverse metric. I guess
more RFCs equals better CVs 😎
Thanks,
Acee
> On Mar 2, 2025, at 8:52 AM, Acee Lindem wrote:
>
> LSR WG,
>
> Thi
