Hi Thomas,
Thank you for promptly addressing the comments.
Looks good to me, but idnits is still not happy with these long lines of Table
1:
==
** There are 12 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest
one being 2 characters in excess of 72.
==
One very very minor nit:
Hi Tianran, all,
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
De : Tianran Zhou [mailto:zhoutian...@huawei.com]
Envoyé : jeudi 24 juin 2021 05:09
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET ;
draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-t...@ietf.org; opsawg-cha...@ietf.org
Cc : opsawg@ietf.org
Objet : RE: Shepherd Review of
Hi Med,
Many thanks for the shepherd review. I updated the document accordingly into
-03 version.
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-03
I included all your suggestions and followed your example in using
abbreviations and changed the term "MPLS Segment
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working Group
WG of the IETF.
Title : Export of MPLS Segment Routing Label Type Information
in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
Hi Med,
>>Why the document is in the "Standard Track"?
>>I failed to see any valid reason especially that:
>>* The IANA policy for the target registry is Expert Review.
>>* We don't have any normative statements in the document.
The registry does not require the standard track document. But this
Hi Thomas, all,
I made a shepherd review of the document. The review can be found at:
* pdf:
https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/draft-ietf-drip-reqs-06-rev%20Med.pdf
* doc:
