Hi David,
Thanks. I will change section 5.3. The changes in Section 9.1 and 9.6 were based on IANA/registries management review. Best Regards, Young _____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 4:36 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: PCE GCO 09 version Young, The only thing from my review that I don't see in your proposed -09 draft is providing the bit numbers for the new bits in the RP object in Section 5.3 in addition to Section 9.1. I noticed that the bit numbers in Sections 9.1 and 9.6 have changed - was this based on checking with IANA and/or some other coordinated means of managing the registries involved? Thanks, --David ---------------------------------------------------- David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 [email protected] Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 ---------------------------------------------------- _____ From: young lee [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 4:28 PM To: Adrian Farrel; Black, David Cc: Young Lee; [email protected] Subject: PCE GCO 09 version Hi Adrian and David, Here's the update on PCE GCO (09) reflecting all the comments from you. However, I cannot upload to IETF-DRAFT-Submission page until March 23. In the meantime, if you can review it, that will be appreciated. Thanks. Regards, Young
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
