Right. Agree with your interpretation. I hope authors can make this clear based
on your suggestions.
Thanks,
Dino
> On Jan 17, 2017, at 7:06 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
>
> Dino Farinacci writes:
>>> Both of these servers process Map-Request messages,
Dino Farinacci writes:
>> Both of these servers process Map-Request messages, albeit with
>> different semantics. Hence the D bit in Map-Request messages is needed
>> to differentiate which server is to process a given Map-Request message.
>
> The reason I explained the
> I reviewed draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-08, and my memory is that the only
> significant technical question was regarding the "D" bit in Map-Request
> messages.
Let me try to make this more clear for you Dale. Thanks for the comment.
> Thinking back on it, I believe that the difficulty I was having was
I reviewed draft-ietf-lisp-ddt-08, and my memory is that the only
significant technical question was regarding the "D" bit in Map-Request
messages.
Thinking back on it, I believe that the difficulty I was having was with
the explanation of the D bit, not its functionality. In particular, a
DDT
Is there any status on the draft-ietf-lisp-ddt? This document is blocking many
other documents in the RFC editor queue.
Dino
> On Nov 4, 2016, at 10:24 AM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>
> Okay, thanks for the effort.
>
> Dino
>
>> On Nov 4, 2016, at 9:15 AM, Anton Smirnov
Hi Dino,
given the scope of comments and need for review between authors it
may be difficult. We will make an effort to achieve this date but right
now I can't guarantee this.
Anton
On Tuesday 01 November 2016 22:55, Dino Farinacci wrote:
Great to hear. Is the goal to publish the new
Great to hear. Is the goal to publish the new draft on Monday of IETF week?
Dino
> On Nov 1, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Anton Smirnov wrote:
>
> Hello Dino,
>
> thanks for taking time to answer these concerns. Authors will work on the
> revised text to incorporate those
Hello Dino,
thanks for taking time to answer these concerns. Authors will work
on the revised text to incorporate those points.
Anton
On Sunday 16 October 2016 22:43, Dino Farinacci wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART)
> 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 treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
>
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>