Thanks Linda and John. That addresses my comment. Regards Suresh
On Nov 13, 2017, at 11:19 AM, John Strassner <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Dear Suresh, thank you for performing this review. All of your issues will be addressed in version 9 of this I-D, to be released on Monday 11/13. In particular, the addr field in .table 1 is removed, since it is redundant with the source and destination address fields. Sorry about that! Other drafts that are currently in progress may extend these (e.g., match on prefix); the intent here is to define a minimum set of fields to match for interoperability. best regards, John On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Suresh Krishnan <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework-08: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I am not sure what the "addr" field in the Packet Content Matching Capability Index for IPv6 means (i.e. what protocol field it corresponds to) and I think it should be clarified. _______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf -- regards, John
_______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
