Regarding whether it should be verified or HFDU, I haven’t taken a hard look
yet. The operative question from the guidance [1] though, is if the change
corrects “errors at the time the document was published”.
The guidance is necessarily not completely prescriptive and my impression is
that
Hi Acee,
I agree with this errata as well and thanks for raising it as well.
Same as the previous one, I am not sure if it can be "Verified" or "Held
for Document Update".
Thanks,
Ketan
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 8:55 PM RFC Errata System
wrote:
> The following errata report has been
Hi Acee,
I agree with this errata and thanks for raising it.
Not sure if it can be "Verified" or "Held for Document Update" though.
Thanks,
Ketan
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 8:07 PM RFC Errata System
wrote:
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC2328,
> "OSPF Version 2".
>
>
Indeed; given the explanation and the fact that it's copied from
otherwise existing text, I think Les is right: just leave it as is,
and thanks for considering and discussing my question.
Barry
On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 6:00 AM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
wrote:
>
> Bruno -
>
> Inline.
>
> >
Bruno -
Inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: bruno.decra...@orange.com
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2024 11:17 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Barry Leiba
>
> Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding@ietf.org; last-c...@ietf.org;
> lsr@ietf.org;
> sec...@ietf.org
> Subject: RE:
Les, Barry,
> From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2024 4:29 PM
>
> Bruno/Barry -
>
> In regards to:
>
> > > — Section 4.4 —
> > >
> >> Length: Indicates the length in octets (1-8) of the Value field. The
> >> length SHOULD be the minimum required to send all
Bruno/Barry -
In regards to:
> > — Section 4.4 —
> >
>> Length: Indicates the length in octets (1-8) of the Value field. The
>> length SHOULD be the minimum required to send all bits that are set.
> >
> > The SHOULD seems very odd: what would be a good reason to make it
> longer than
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC2328,
"OSPF Version 2".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7851
--
Type: Technical
Reported by: Acee Lindem
Section: 8.1
Hi Mirja,
Thanks for your follow up on this and your time.
Please see inline [Bruno4]
> -Original Message-
> From: Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2024 4:55 PM
>
> Hi Bruno,
>
> Sorry for my late reply. These weeks are busy...
>
> See below.
>
> > On 4. Mar
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC2328,
"OSPF Version 2".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7850
--
Type: Technical
Reported by: Alfred Lindem
Section:
Hi Barry,
Thanks for your review, comments and proposed resolution. Much appreciated.
Please see inline [Bruno]
> From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2024 6:21 AM
> To: sec...@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding@ietf.org; last-c...@ietf.org;
>
Hi Ketan,
> On Mar 15, 2024, at 05:26, Ketan Talaulikar wrote:
>
> Hi Acee,
>
> Sorry for the late reply. Your naming proposal for the terminologies look
> good to me.
>
> Just one clarification - this draft will change the value of LinkMaxMetric
> constant as defined in RFC6987/8770 from
Hi Acee,
Sorry for the late reply. Your naming proposal for the terminologies look
good to me.
Just one clarification - this draft will change the value of LinkMaxMetric
constant as defined in RFC6987/8770 from 0x to 0xfffe - is that correct?
Please also see inline below for a minor
13 matches
Mail list logo
