On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 at 12:47, Peter Psenak <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi John, > > please see inline (##PP): > > On 27/06/2023 17:48, John Scudder wrote: > > Hi Authors, > > > > I don’t think we’ve completely closed on this. Zahed is asking for > Section 3 to be tightened a little bit. The authors haven’t either said “no > we won’t” or proposed text. In hopes of provoking some forward motion, > here’s an attempt of my own, based on my understanding of the conversation > so far. My straw man suggestion is to insert this paragraph at the > beginning of Section 3.1: > > > > In this subsection, we illustrate one use case that motivates this > > specification: if a specific service can be identified by an IP > > address, traffic to it can use constraint-based paths computed > > according to this specification. > > > > Zahed, if this works for you, please ack. If it doesn’t work for you, > please propose text. > > > > Authors, same to you. > > ##PP > I'm fine with your prposal. Thanks Jhon! This works for me. // Zahed > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
