Michael, I felt addressing your comment was important enough to warrant a new draft update:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-atn-bgp/ In the process, I also added a new figure in the introduction as recommended by another reviewer who correctly pointed out that a figure would make the document easier to understand. Thanks to all for the comments, Fred > -----Original Message----- > From: rtgwg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Tüxen via > Datatracker > Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 12:23 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Tsvart early review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-atn-bgp-13 > > EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments. > > > > Reviewer: Michael Tüxen > Review result: Ready > > The document mentions that some data links used by aircrafts today only > provide > a bandwidth in the order of 32 Kbps. Any protocols using these links should be > parametrised for that bandwidth and parametrisation might not be the default > one used in todays links used in the Internet. However, if I understand the > document correctly, the BGP communication described in this document is not > using these links and therefore I see no issues with respect to transport > protocol considerations. > > > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
