Hi Bruno,
Sorry for my late reply. These weeks are busy...
See below.
> On 4. Mar 2024, at 16:59, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
>
> Hi Mirja,
>
> Thanks for your follow up on this and your time
> Please see inline [Bruno3]
>
>> -Original Message-
>
I just updated my review but I don’t think it generated another email. This is
what I added:
Update: Even though the last review was meant to be an "early" it was only
requested right before IETF LC. I understand that the feedback provided is
therefore rather late in the process and therefore I
Hi Les!
Please see below.
> On 5. Feb 2024, at 23:28, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> wrote:
>
> Mirja -
>
> In regards to Section 6.3...
>
>
>>
>> Sec 6.3
>> This section is entirely not clear to me. There is no algorithm described
>> and I
>> would not know how to implement this.
>
> [LES:]
Hi Bruno,
Thanks for your replies.
On the high-level I think that some or most of the explanation you provide me
below about parameter values, should actually go into the draft. I understand
that there is not a one fits all but that’s why min/max values are often more
important than
Hi Acee,
Thanks for these changes/additions.
One comment below.
> On 20. Aug 2019, at 17:05, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>
> Hi Mirja,
>
> On 8/19/19, 12:25 PM, "Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker"
> wrote:
>
>Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
>
Hi Les,
Please see inline.
> On 14. May 2019, at 18:12, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
>
> Mirja -
>
> Thanx for the review.
> Responses inline.
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 4:58 AM
>> To: The IESG
>> Cc:
> Am 03.12.2018 um 16:01 schrieb Peter Psenak :
>
>> Minor comments:
>> 1) In intro: "...while an adjacency segment, in
>>most cases, is a one-hop path."
>> Is that true, that in _most_ cases it is one hop?
>
> the text is referring to adjacency segment, which is local and only
>
> Am 03.12.2018 um 16:01 schrieb Peter Psenak :
>
>> 2) The contributor section has the following statement:
>> "The following people gave a substantial contribution to the content
>>of this document and should be considered as co-authors:"
>> Should this section then not be called
