Peter,

I will have a look for Alvaro's reply to Barry's comment then :)

The suggested text below will fix the nit indeed.

Thank you

-éric

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Psenak <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, 11 May 2020 at 19:14
To: Eric Vyncke <[email protected]>, The IESG <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, 
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, 
"Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" 
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-12: (with 
COMMENT)

    Hi Eric,

    please see inline:

    On 11/05/2020 18:02, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker wrote:
    > Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
    > draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-12: 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-isis-mpls-elc/
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    > COMMENT:
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    > 
    > Thank you for the work put into this document. The document is easy to 
read.
    > 
    > Like other ADs, I wonder why the IS-IS and OSPF are separate documents.

    Alvaro has responded to similar query from Barry Leiba.

    > 
    > Please find below one NIT.
    > 
    > I hope that this helps to improve the document,
    > 
    > Regards,
    > 
    > -éric
    > 
    > == NIT ==
    > 
    > -- section 4 --
    > The "one" is ambiguous in "the router MUST advertise the smallest one." 
even if
    > we can guess that it is not "interface" ;-)

    ok, what would you like to say instead "one"?

    Would this be better:

    If a router has multiple interfaces with different capabilities of 
    reading the maximum label stack depth, the router MUST advertise the 
    smallest value found across all of its interfaces.

    thanks,
    Peter


    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 


_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Reply via email to