Awesome, thanks to both of you. Peter, if you can cut a new version with the change, I’ll approve it.
—John > On Jun 28, 2023, at 3:41 AM, Zaheduzzaman Sarker > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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
