By the way,
> On Jun 13, 2022, at 1:15 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> wrote:
>
> If you want to see the diff from the respective RFCs, simply go to the IETF
> Diff tool: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff
tools.ietf.org and everything hosted there is deprecated. You’re better off
using
lt;mailto:stef...@previdi.net>;
wim.henderi...@nokia.com<mailto:wim.henderi...@nokia.com>; John E Drake
mailto:jdr...@juniper.net>>;
aretana.i...@gmail.com<mailto:aretana.i...@gmail.com>;
martin.vigour...@nokia.com<mailto:martin.vigour...@nokia.com>;
cho...@chopps
;
> Orange Restricted
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2022 8:47 PM
> To: John Scudder
> Cc: Acee Lindem (acee) ; Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
> ; stef...@previdi.net; wim.henderi...@nokia.com; John E
> Drake ; aretana.i...@gmail.com;
>
Psenak (ppsenak)
> ; stef...@previdi.net; wim.henderi...@nokia.com; John E
> Drake ; aretana.i...@gmail.com;
> martin.vigour...@nokia.com; cho...@chopps.org; lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8919 (6630)
>
> Hi Les,
>
> Yes that’s about righ
..@gmail.com<mailto:aretana.i...@gmail.com>;
martin.vigour...@nokia.com<mailto:martin.vigour...@nokia.com>;
cho...@chopps.org<mailto:cho...@chopps.org>; lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8919 (6630)
Hi Les,
Yes that’s abo
ef...@previdi.net; wim.henderi...@nokia.com; John E
Drake ; aretana.i...@gmail.com; martin.vigour...@nokia.com;
cho...@chopps.org; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8919 (6630)
John –
Don’t know if you have completed your review of the mailing list archives on
this subje
; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8919 (6630)
Hi Les,
Yes that’s about right, except I think the changes could be processed either as
a bis or as a so-called “patch” draft, i.e. one that looks substantially
similar to the errata you submitted (a bunch of OLD: and NEW
Hi Les,
Yes that’s about right, except I think the changes could be processed either as
a bis or as a so-called “patch” draft, i.e. one that looks substantially
similar to the errata you submitted (a bunch of OLD: and NEW: blocks, for
example) that Updates: RFC 8919.
The IESG has in the past
John –
If I interpret the essence of your comments correctly, you are expressing a
preference that the proposed changes be handled via a BIS draft rather than an
errata.
I don’t have an objection to that – and in some ways it makes sense to me.
However, I have not been pleased (in general)
-rfc-editor
Hi All,
This kind of erratum requires careful consideration and I’d appreciate it if
the WG were to weigh in. In particular, without reviewing the RFC and mailing
list carefully (which I’ve not yet done, but will) it’s unclear to me if the
proposed erratum meets this criterion:
LSR WG,
This Errata is an outcome of the Flex-Algorithm discussion - is there any
further comment?
Thanks,
Acee
On 7/5/21, 5:48 PM, "RFC Errata System" wrote:
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8919,
"IS-IS Application-Specific Link Attributes".
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8919,
"IS-IS Application-Specific Link Attributes".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6630
--
Type: Technical
Reported by:
12 matches
Mail list logo
