Sorry folks - one more attempt to correct what I see as inappropriate
dependencies.
Codepoint registries are created in part precisely to avoid having to update
pre-existing documents when we need to add additional codepoints to the
registry. The registry is the living entity and when
Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-14: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer
Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-14: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-14: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please
Looking at this I-D, from OPSAWG, I get somewhat concerned and wonder what
those with more knowledge of the LSR protocols than I would think.
It caters for routing between PE and CE, RIP, VRRP, BGP, PIM, MLD, IGMP, BFD
not to mention the two LSR protocols and so contains the YANG to
