Dear Authors, WG
I reviewed the latest version 42 of the draft.
I believe the draft is ready for WGLC.
Few minor comments
Customers along with default route to VPC which I agree is the best method
and could use prefix list filtering along with prefix limit to prevent and
unwanted or unexpected
Hi Haibo,
This is a very useful draft. I have some questions below.
1. This draft proposes a fast notification packet used in scenarios such as
congestion notification and failure notification. In which layer does this
packet work, or is it a universal packet applicable to various protocols l
Going back to my April 2023 TSVART early review,
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/oBC-tf5COS8MAoWFLCAF5HcEXiY/, I
still have a problem with:
> I don't understand the target audience or purpose of this draft,
I'd like to understand why the IETF should publish this draft as an RFC,
Hi Linda,
Let's allow the WG some time to review and comment on the latest version.
Also please make sure you address the comments from the IESG reviews. A
couple of examples below (not a complete list):
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/zJpp9slvS6IcViOh5HQmVqwXmzQ/
https://mailarchive.
David,
Thank you very much for reiterating those important questions.
Answers to your questions are inserted below:
Linda
From: Black, David
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2025 6:48 AM
To: Linda Dunbar ; rtgwg@ietf.org
Cc: Black, David
Subject: RE: Request for Another Round of Directorate Review for
