one more reason for making it part of the base spec ;-) - /hannes On Oct 10, 2013, at 5:14 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> Without doing a whole load of investigation, we should assume > that the IPR disclosures that apply to rlfa apply to this draft. > I will therefore set in place the process to extend the > disclosure. > > Stewart > > On 01/10/2013 19:07, Jeff Tantsura wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Question to the authors of the draft about their intentions, obviously the >> basic node protection equation(D_opt(Npq, Dst) < D_opt(Npq, Np) + >> Distance_opt(Np, Dst)) is correct, however the rest is more or less >> implementation details. >> So if the authors would like to share the details about their >> implementation should not the Intended Status be Informational? >> >> Cheers, >> Jeff >> >> >>>>> Folks, >>>>> >>>>> Does anyone know whether the draft deal will be treated in the IETF 88? >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Rogerio Mariano >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> View this message in context: >>>>> http://ietf.10.n7.nabble.com/Request-for-review-draft-psarkar-rtgwg-rlfa >>>>> - >>>>> n >>>>> ode-protection-01-txt-tp375714p386321.html >>>>> Sent from the IETF - Rtgwg mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> rtgwg mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg >> _______________________________________________ >> rtgwg mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg >> > > > -- > For corporate legal information go to: > > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html > > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg > > _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
