; teas-...@ietf.org; t...@ietf.org;
lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr-...@ietf.org;
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316...@ietf.org
主题: Re: [Teas] [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis
Still waiting on this mail to the list.
Thanks,
Chris.
> On Jul 21, 2021, at 6:18 PM, Christian Ho
@ietf.org; TEAS WG
> (t...@ietf.org) ; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; teas-
> a...@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Lsr] [Teas] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis
>
> On March 3, 2021 at 6:29:28 PM, Les Ginsberg wrote:
>
>
> Les:
>
> Hi!
>
>
On March 3, 2021 at 6:29:28 PM, Les Ginsberg wrote:
Les:
Hi!
...
> Now, can you respond to my comment regarding the lack of clarity in using
> quotes?
Sure.
I guess you mean this comment: "But I have to say that for me as a
reader the use of quotes as you suggest does not aid clarity."
etf.org>>;
> lsr-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:lsr-cha...@ietf.org>;
> lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>; lsr-
> a...@ietf.org<mailto:a...@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] [Teas] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis
>
> Hi,
>
> I went through
ubject: RE: [Lsr] [Teas] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis
Les:
The text is not the same:
§3.1 reads: "The Router ID SHOULD be identical to the value advertised in the
Traffic Engineering Router ID TLV [RFC5305].”
I’m sure you’ll do the right thing.
Thanks!
Alvaro.
On March
Les:
The text is not the same:
§3.1 reads: "The Router ID SHOULD be identical to the value advertised in
the Traffic Engineering Router ID TLV [RFC5305].”
I’m sure you’ll do the right thing.
Thanks!
Alvaro.
On March 3, 2021 at 3:54:42 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) (ginsb...@cisco.com)
wrote:
...@ietf.org; TEAS WG (t...@ietf.org) ; teas-
> a...@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Lsr] [Teas] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis
>
> On March 3, 2021 at 2:47:38 PM, Les Ginsberg wrote:
> > > From: Lsr On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
>
> Les:
>
> Hi!
>
> ...
etf.org) ; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org; lsr-
> a...@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] [Teas] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis
>
> Hi,
>
> I went through the diff with RFC5316. The changes look good. Some
> minor comments -
>
> (1) Is it w
Hi,
I went through the diff with RFC5316. The changes look good. Some
minor comments -
(1) Is it wise to use normative keywords MUST and SHOULD in the
appendix? The text is from section 3.1 but can it be reworded in the
appendix? Also wondering if other changes (IANA, nits) could be listed
or we
I’ve read the draft and support the publication.
Thanks,
Yingzhen
> On Feb 17, 2021, at 7:30 AM, Christian Hopps wrote:
>
> Hi LSR and TEAS,
>
> This begins a joint WG last call for:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis/
>
> Please discuss any issues on the
I support publication. Not aware of any IPRs.
Thanks
Gyan
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 12:51 PM Stefano Previdi (IETF)
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I’m not aware of any IPR related to this draft.
>
> Thanks.
> s.
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 2021, at 4:30 PM, Christian Hopps wrote:
> >
> > Hi LSR and TEAS,
> >
> >
> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 11:30 PM
> To: lsr@ietf.org
> Cc: Christian Hopps ; teas-cha...@ietf.org;
> teas-...@ietf.org; t...@ietf.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr-...@ietf.org
> Subject: [Teas] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis
>
> Hi LSR and TEAS,
>
>
Yes/support
Cheers,
Jeff
On Feb 17, 2021, 7:30 AM -0800, Christian Hopps , wrote:
> Hi LSR and TEAS,
>
> This begins a joint WG last call for:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc5316bis/
>
> Please discuss any issues on the LSR mailing list. The WGLC will end March 3,
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
