Re: [Lsr] WG last call for draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-terminology-00

Speaking as WG Member: Here is the update I intend to submit today: Additionally, in Section 2.4.,first paragraph, "Changes to the Hello Packet Processing", the text is updated to remove the non-inclusive terms pertaining to unreachability handling as follows: When an OSPFv3

Re: [Lsr] WG last call for draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-terminology-00

On July 7, 2022 at 6:04:30 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: Adrian: Hi! ... > I checked the mailing list and couldn't find any discussion of this point so: > is there any reason why the term "black hole" is also not being addressed? It > seems to fall under the NIST guidance ("Avoid terms that use

Re: [Lsr] WG last call for draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-terminology-00

Chris, all, I'm aware that the WG last call has gone by and I'd understand it if my comments are therefore put on one side. But rather than wait for IETF last call, I thought I'd ask now... I checked the mailing list and couldn't find any discussion of this point so: is there any reason why

Re: [Lsr] WG last call for draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-terminology-00

" , "lsr-cha...@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG last call for draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-terminology-00 Resent-From: Resent-To: Acee Lindem , , Resent-Date: Friday, June 24, 2022 at 1:30 AM Hi WG, I support progressing this towards publication. Some comments - - The header and main

Re: [Lsr] WG last call for draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-terminology-00

Hi WG, I support progressing this towards publication. Some comments - - The header and main body claim that 7 RFCs are being updated whereas the abstract and introduction only cite two. - It is good to add an informational reference for inclusive language in the introduction -- may be

Re: [Lsr] WG last call for draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-terminology-00

sr-ospf-terminol...@ietf.org; lsr- >> a...@ietf.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org >> Subject: [Lsr] WG last call for draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-terminology-00 >> >> Given the simplicity of this document and having received no objections or >> edits prior to or during the adoption call we'

Re: [Lsr] WG last call for draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-terminology-00

2 2:48 AM > To: lsr@ietf.org > Cc: cho...@chopps.org; draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-terminol...@ietf.org; lsr- > a...@ietf.org; lsr-cha...@ietf.org > Subject: [Lsr] WG last call for draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-terminology-00 > > Given the simplicity of this document and having received no objections or

Re: [Lsr] WG last call for draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-terminology-00

Hi! I’m not aware of any IPR related to this work. Thanks! Alvaro. On June 5, 2022 at 6:14:02 AM, Christian Hopps (cho...@chopps.org) wrote: Given the simplicity of this document and having received no objections or edits prior to or during the adoption call we'll

Re: [Lsr] WG last call for draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-terminology-00

draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-terminol...@ietf.org , lsr-...@ietf.org , lsr-cha...@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-terminology-00 Hi Chris, I'm not aware of any IPR. Thanks, Acee On 6/5/22, 5:55 AM, "Christian Hopps" wrote: Given the simplicity

Re: [Lsr] WG last call for draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-terminology-00

Hi Chris, I'm not aware of any IPR. Thanks, Acee On 6/5/22, 5:55 AM, "Christian Hopps" wrote: Given the simplicity of this document and having received no objections or edits prior to or during the adoption call we'll be moving it immediately to WGLC... This begins a 2 week WG Last

[Lsr] WG last call for draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-terminology-00

Given the simplicity of this document and having received no objections or edits prior to or during the adoption call we'll be moving it immediately to WGLC... This begins a 2 week WG Last Call, ending Jun 19th, 2022, for: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-terminology/