Thank you for comments on draft-song-ntf.
I'm not sure I understand your second point. Could you please clarify it?
Please note we didn't enforce any specific model on the telemetry yet. This doc
only concerns the aspect on how to acquire data from networks. It does support
I agree - no reason to delay!
There is one small difference between what is in the document and what
is in the RFC I pointed to
The document has "...as described in [BCP 14] [RFC2119] [RFC8174]..."
While RFC has "...as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174]..."
The reference list
Strange, I'd remove the reference to [BCP14] since RFC 8174 and BCP 14 are the
same document. I'm going to request publication as this certainly isn't enough
to delay for an update.
On 7/9/18, 8:26 AM, "Peter Psenak (ppsenak)" wrote:
The new boiler plate for requirements language, with references to both RFC
2119 and RFC 8174, is:
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
thanks for your review.
As regards to first IDNITS warning, not sure about the first one, I took
the section "Requirements Language" from RFC8395 as suggested by Loa.
RFC2119 is only referenced there, that should not be a problem though.
I removed the reference to ISO10589.
Hi Les & Acee:
Yes, I agree with you, we will merge ISIS & OSPF extensions for Path MTU, and
isis will reference RFC 7176.
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2018 12:52 PM
To: Acee Lindem (acee) ; Huzhibo