Thanks Toerless. I'm not hearing any disagreement so that will be in the next version. With your WG Chair hat on, are there any other changes required?
Regards Brian On 14/08/2017 16:47, Toerless Eckert wrote: > Reaffirming my preference for 1. > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 05:17:21PM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> As a reminder, we have two options in the draft for adding support >> of IPv4 prefix management: >> >> 1. Add a version number flag to the objective >> 2. Add a second objective specific to IPv4 >> >> So far the preferences I have heard (including my own) are for option 1, >> because it's simpler to implement. I think the authors will go that way for >> the >> next version, but of course it's a WG choice. Comments please! >> >> Quick link: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-anima-prefix-management-04#section-5.2 >> >> Regards >> Brian >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Anima mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima > _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
