Hi John, About loc-rib (abusing the thread a bit): that is correct. We are going to bundle that with Jeff’s feedback (which i am working on processing).
Paolo On 26 Jun 2019, at 17:45, John Scudder <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: That diff looks fine to resolve the issue I raised. I think the question raised in the thread "Value of timestamps in BMP header for local-rib monitoring” is still outstanding? Though it’s been updated in the GitHub repo, I don’t think it’s been published yet. —John On Jun 26, 2019, at 7:15 AM, Christopher Morrow <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Tim did this 6/7/2019 (june 7) https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dgrow-2Dbmp-2Dlocal-2Drib-2D04&d=DwIFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=hLt5iDJpw7ukqICc0hoT7A&m=tMgY5YxF35lgXApQPUcggCTGaqI3b-99tYFMOfOH_O0&s=mEXLZvGL2jAluO27b1erwEOrR4FZTDWZRy-_z09wR4A&e= huazzah! moving forward I think is ok now? -chris co-chairy On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 5:23 AM Tim Evens (tievens) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi John, We will submit a revision update shortly that incorporates the below changes. --Tim On May 23, 2019, at 9:53 AM, John Scudder <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>..org> wrote: Hi Job and all, On May 22, 2019, at 8:44 PM, Job Snijders <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I'd like to ask that folks with skin in the game take a look and share with the working group whether we are good to go, or follow up with proposals for changes to the draft, or at least affirm outstanding issues still remain. The diff resolves the major issue I brought up in my December 15, 2018 email (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mailarchive.ietf.org_arch_msg_grow_wA3Nkz2lw6obTH9fF1X2Mkm4INM&d=DwIFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=hLt5iDJpw7ukqICc0hoT7A&m=tMgY5YxF35lgXApQPUcggCTGaqI3b-99tYFMOfOH_O0&s=7404YXkfnlK85bQoxYR6zfNagba4I3sdH2CqnE2g_W8&e= ) using the solution Paolo and I agreed later (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mailarchive.ietf.org_arch_msg_grow_t6LKhCLc-2DE-5FawiVHowB4WDnMSps&d=DwIFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=hLt5iDJpw7ukqICc0hoT7A&m=tMgY5YxF35lgXApQPUcggCTGaqI3b-99tYFMOfOH_O0&s=axhG8-NAco1sysXpwqBXpbwIwg-qvMc6UUqVp-Ib2dA&e= ). Looks like this minor comment wasn’t addressed: "By the way, shouldn't those "SHOULDs" be "MUSTs"? If not MUST, under what circumstances MAY they be omitted?” I did a quick grep of -03 for SHOULDs and to my eye, all of them can (and therefore SHOULD :-) be MUSTs, other than those in section 5.4.2 of which I think the first is fine and the second could just as well be “should” in lowercase. (Opinions vary on the proper use of SHOULD vs. MUST, but this is mine.) This is separate from the best/active topic you asked about, but Jeff replied to that so I’m going to assume it’s being covered. —John _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_grow&d=DwIFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=hLt5iDJpw7ukqICc0hoT7A&m=tMgY5YxF35lgXApQPUcggCTGaqI3b-99tYFMOfOH_O0&s=JJca_ZIsMAwCblZYuFntYx0RArdkIN94qEREzsu6yjI&e= _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_grow&d=DwIFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=hLt5iDJpw7ukqICc0hoT7A&m=tMgY5YxF35lgXApQPUcggCTGaqI3b-99tYFMOfOH_O0&s=JJca_ZIsMAwCblZYuFntYx0RArdkIN94qEREzsu6yjI&e= _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
