Hi Dave,
My explanations are inline below with prefix [HC2].
From: David Allan I [mailto:david.i.al...@ericsson.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2019 2:33 PM
To: Huaimo Chen
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Lsr] Min Links for Multiple Failures on Flooding Topology
Hi Huaimo:
Replies are in line…
Erik -
Thanx for the detailed review.
I have published V24 of the draft which addresses all of your comments (and a
few pending AD review comments from Alvaro).
Some exceptions noted below.
> -Original Message-
> From: Erik Kline via Datatracker
> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 7:20 PM
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Link State Routing WG of the IETF.
Title : IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing
Authors : Stefano Previdi
Les Ginsberg
Reviewer: Erik Kline
Review result: Ready with Nits
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more in
Version 21 of the draft has just been uploaded, I removed the sentence
“IGPs with SR extensions...are examples of MCCs.”.
as you suggested since I overlooked removing it in version 20 which was
uploaded few hours ago
Thanks
Ahmed
On 4/10/19 3:05 PM, Alvaro Retana wrote:
On April 10, 2019 at
Alvaro, Ahmed and all,
As the twice RTG-DIR reviewer of this draft I should probably have noticed this
earlier, but...
I fully agree with Alvaro that the drafts that define SR extensions to IS-IS
and OSPF do not say anything about these protocols installing SR-related
forwarding entries in the
