Hi Vijay, Thanks for your review.
1) Minor: Good catch. It is indeed a normative update. I have updated the text. FROM://Hence, it is reasonable to say IPv4 or IPv6 address instead of /32 or /128 addresses as shown below in the updated rule:// TO: //Hence, that rule is updated to use IPv4 or IPv6 address instead of /32 or /128 addresses as shown below:// 2) Nit: Item 8 in section 1 as well as section 9 already mention RFC6720. -- Cheers, Rajiv Asati Distinguished Engineer, Cisco -----Original Message----- From: Jari Arkko <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 10:06 AM To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, General Area Review Team <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-15 Resent-From: <[email protected]> Resent-To: Carlos Pignataro <[email protected]>, Rajiv Papneja <[email protected]>, Rajiv Asati <[email protected]>, Vishwas Manral <[email protected]> Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 15:06:33 +0000 >Many thanks for your review. Authors, any thoughts on the comments below? > >Jari > >On 05 Feb 2015, at 03:40, Vijay K. Gurbani <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on >> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at >> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >> >> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments >> you may receive. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-15 >> Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani >> Review Date: Feb-04-2015 >> IETF LC End Date: Unknown >> IESG Telechat date: Feb-05-2015 >> >> This document is ready as a Proposed Standard. >> >> Major: 0 >> Minor: 1 >> Nits: 1 >> >> Minor: 1 >> 1/ In Section 3, it appears that the second paragraph ("This rule ... >> updated rule:") is modifying rfc5036 to use the new text given >> below the quoted paragraph. >> >> However, I am not sure whether this is normative update or simply >> a suggestion. In the second paragraph, the authors write that, >> "Hence, it is reasonable to say ..." What does "reasonable" mean? >> Does it mean that rfc5036 is updated authoritatively with the >> suggested text or simply that rfc5036 text need not be updated but >> the text in this draft should be considered. >> >> Nits: >> 1/ I am not sure what portions of this draft update rfc6720... >> Perhaps item (8) in Section 1, but am not sure. >> >> Thanks, >> >> - vijay >> -- >> Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent >> 1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA) >> Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [email protected] >> Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/ | Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gen-art mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art >
default[1].xml
Description: default[1].xml
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
