Hi Alvaro,
On 2/6/18, 12:18 PM, "rtgwg on behalf of Alvaro Retana"
<[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model-05: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This document references/augments rfc7223. It should reference rfc7223bis
instead. The examples in Appendix B still show the interfaces-state
subtree,
but the main text doesn't. Are there any other changes in rfc7223bis that
would impact this document?
I've fixed all the references to RFC7223 and RFC8022. I've also collapsed all
the examples and tree diagrams to single routing and interface trees.
Thanks,
Acee
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
