Hi Matthew, thank you for the heads-up. I'll review the updated draft and be back with my notes.
Regards, Greg On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 3:58 AM Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) < matthew.bo...@nokia.com> wrote: > 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
