John,
The objective of this email thread as well as the discussion during the
RTGWG meeting on Tuesday Nov/5 is to address the DISCUSS items. I hope
the latest modifications to draft resolve these DISCUSS items. I also
incorporated the suggestions from Ketan. So let's resolve the DISCUSS
item
I forgot to include this latest change in my previous email
The diffs attached to this reply contains all your previous suggestions
plus this latest pne
Thanks
Ahmed
On 11/15/24 7:23 AM, Ketan Talaulikar wrote:
Hi John,
Disclaimer: I am just catching up on the discussion on this draft. I
Thanks Ketan for pointing out the text that clarifies that the computed
ti-lfa repair path may be different from the actual post-convergence path
As for the editorial suggestions, I agree with all of them. I have
incorporated these changes and attached the diffs from the latest
version (versio
Hi Jim,
Ack. I've been following the discussion in this thread and I agree with
your suggestion. The chairs will send an email to the mailing list about
this major change in the draft and poll the WG's opinion,
especially whether there are any objections.
Thanks,
Yingzhen
On Thu, Nov 21, 2024
Hi Ahmed & WG chairs,
Thank you for the work in this latest version. However, as the responsible AD I
am still uneasy with the consensus call on this document given the objections
raised before and during the IETF 121 meeting, and the still open DISCUSSes
after IESG evaluation. The main point o
