Many thanks Joe/Tianran for your suggestions.
We will add in the next release of the draft, if not the complete tree,
meaningful sections that we consider to be more important for each module.
Marisol
From: Joe Clarke (jclarke)
Date: Tuesday, 31 October 2023 at 14:08
To: Tianran Zhou , Marisol
Hi Med,
Many thanks for your valuable input.
We will address your comments in our next review of the document. I look
forward to discussing this further in Prague. I didn’t have time to review all
your comments in detail yet, but we will get back to you on it.
As mentioned to Benoit Claise, in
Hi Benoit,
Thanks for your note.
I agree, we should include a note & reference to the EMAN RFC’s related work,
as you pointed out, where there are similar concepts to some of the attributes
that we define in POWEFF.
It is also my view, that Sustainability Insights draft enlarges the approach to
Hi -
(Odd that I didn't see the original report)
The report is correct that RFC 3415 defines a possible errorIndication
of notInView, and that RFC 3413 doesn't explicitly say what to do about
it. But that's about it. The cases enumerated in 3.2 (5) are errors
that effectively short-circuit requ
By the way if you’re interested, here’s a calendar time blocker for your
convenience.
From: OPSAWG On Behalf Of Liuchunchi(Peter)
Sent: 2023年11月3日 2:00
To: opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: [OPSAWG] Invitation to Path Validation Side Meeting at Tuesday Evening
Hi opsawg,
We are organizing a side meetin
Hi Blake,
Thanks for the extra context. Generally, IETF has a high bar for what it will
accept as errata, particularly if it looks like it could have a high impact,
and particularly when the RFC in question is now so old, and I generally err on
the side of caution!
For me to mark this errata
Offhand, I rather doubt this is a valid errata.
Thanks
Regards,
Uri
> On Nov 2, 2023, at 06:48, Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> wrote:
>
> !---|
> This Message Is From an External Sender
> This message came from outside the Laboratory
Hi,
I would appreciate input from the authors, and SNMP experts on how they think
this errata should be processed please. I've looked at the appropriate
sections of the RFC, but it isn't clear to me whether this errata is valid or
not and I'm slightly nervous of making what could amount to qui
