Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-09

Hi, Thanks for addressing my comments, and for explaining the reason for Experimental :) Regards, Christer -Original Message- From: Luigi Iannone Sent: tiistai 12. huhtikuuta 2022 10.14 To: Christer Holmberg Cc: gen-art@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf@ietf.org;

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-09

Hi Christer, Luigi, Thanks for the review Christer. I agree with your comments and with Luigi’s suggestions. We’ll edit the draft to include the feedback in the next iteration. Thanks! Alberto From: Luigi Iannone Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 9:15 AM To: Christer Holmberg Cc:

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-09

Hi Christer, Thanks for the review. As a shepherd I have a couple of comments inline. > On 11 Apr 2022, at 22:35, Christer Holmberg via Datatracker > wrote: > > Reviewer: Christer Holmberg > Review result: Ready with Issues > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General

Re: [Gen-art] [Anima] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-anima-constrained-join-proxy-09

Hi Michael, I liked the reference to RFC6550 because it shows that other RFCs provide the same modes; and it was argued to standardize only one mode. Peter Michael Richardson schreef op 2022-04-11 20:04: The document defines a mechanism to assign a Device (Pledge) to a (anima) domain,