Hi John,
I have posted version 16 earlier today.
thanks,
Peter
On 28/06/2023 17:09, John Scudder wrote:
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
