Joel, thanks for your review. Ron, thanks for engaging with Joel. I have
entered a No Objection ballot. I gather the change will be reflected in the
next rev.
Alissa
> On Nov 30, 2017, at 4:44 PM, Joel Halpern wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
> Review result: Almost
I followed up with Ron on this a bit off-list to try to understand the
goal of the E (or P) bit. (My understanding was clealry not a show
stopper for advancing the draft.) After some explanation, I asked the
following question (Ron suggested I send it to the list.)
It seems you are trying
Good enough.
Joel
On 12/4/17 5:48 PM, Ron Bonica wrote:
Joel,
The important piece of information is that this is a pseudowire endpoint. These
days, most pseudowire endpoints seem to be Ethernet. But some aren't. There are
still some legacy layer 2 pseudowires hanging around.
So, since we
Joel,
The important piece of information is that this is a pseudowire endpoint. These
days, most pseudowire endpoints seem to be Ethernet. But some aren't. There are
still some legacy layer 2 pseudowires hanging around.
So, since we can't enumerate every type of pseudowire endpoint, we might
Hi Joel,
Thanks for the review. Responses inline..
Ron
> -Original Message-
> From: Joel Halpern [mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 4:45 PM
> To: gen-...@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-intarea-probe@ietf.org;
Thank you Ron.
On the E-bit (or P-Bit), is the important goal that it is a virtual
interface, that it is pseudowire, or ? It might help there text
indicating what a receiver might do differently based on this bit being
set or unset.
Having said that, Ethernet Pseudowire is at least a clearer
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review result: Almost Ready
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new