Hi Acee, Thanks for your review, comments and suggestions. We’ve incorporated them and posted an update for this draft.
Note that as requested in a separate email thread, the draft has been renamed so it is associated with the LSR WG instead of the old OSPF one : https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions/ This draft also has editorial changes to align with the latest version of the draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming and is functionally equivalent to the draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions. The authors believe this version is ready for WG adoption as requested previously. Thanks, Ketan (on behalf of co-authors) From: Lizhenbin <[email protected]> Sent: 16 December 2019 20:31 To: Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: Comments on draft-li-ospf-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-07.txt Hi Acee, Thanks very much for your help to refine the draft. You suggestion also makes sense. We will update accordingly. Best Regards, Robin From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, December 13, 2019 5:44 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Comments on draft-li-ospf-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-07.txt Hi Robin, et al, One thing I’d like to see is incorporation of the text for the MSD types in the draft. It is less than one and a half pages and it doesn’t make sense to reference the IS-IS draft. I’ve also attached my editorial comments. Thanks, Acee
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
