Hi, I've read the document and believe it is ready for publication. Several notes after the reading:
- authors might consider changing references to list IETF documents rather than enumerating them in the list of references. For example, use [RFC5036] instead of [4]. - Because the ability to realize the described technique depends on using the specific HW, I think that should be reflected in the Abstract. Perhaps following the very last sentence: It is noteworthy to mention that the benefits of BGP-PIC are hinged on the existence of more than one path whether as ECMP or primary-backup. - And because, as I understand, the document describes a particular implementation, an Experimental track might be used rather than the Informational. Regards, Greg On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 8:26 PM Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear RTGWG, > > The authors have requested WGLC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic. > > There was consensus that document is ready for the last call, the authors > have addressed all the comments received, IPR statements have been > submitted. > Please indicate support or no-support by December 28, 2020. > > Cheers, > Jeff and Chris > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
