Hi Greg Thank you for your detailed review and comments. We have tried to address these in the updated draft that we just posted.
In answer to your question below about whether the ancillary data needs a common format, I agree that it at least needs a common header format. Regards Matthew From: Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, 15 February 2022 at 20:18 To: draft-bocci-mpls-miad-adi-requireme...@ietf.org <draft-bocci-mpls-miad-adi-requireme...@ietf.org> Cc: mpls <m...@ietf.org>, spring <spring@ietf.org>, DetNet WG <det...@ietf.org> Subject: Comments on draft-bocci-mpls-miad-adi-requirements Hi Stewart and Matthew, thank you for organizing this document in a very clear and concise manner. I enjoyed reading it. Attached, please find a copy of the draft with my notes, comments, and suggestions. The most important, in my view, the question I have Should we add the requirement to have a common format for ancillary data defined? Looking forward to your feedback. Regards, Greg
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
