Michael,
On 28.04.2024 23:46, Michael Richardson wrote:
Eliot Lear wrote:
> consideration. Michael, I don't think it's necessary in this case to
> update 8520 because we *are* indeed creating a new namespace. However,
> this wasn't properly indicated in the draft.
I don't have
Dear Alex, All,
Thanks a lot for your comments.
We will change the intended status to standards track in the next revision of
the draft.
Your considerations about the IEs for the node delay between the ingress and
the egress interface make sense, especially in the case of Alternate-Marking.
As yo
I understand now that the extensions attribute in RFC8520 can be used to add
modules. This is distinctly not-YANG.
I wonder if we should have done this for RFC8366bis?
--
Michael Richardson. o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
sign
