gt;
> IMO, it seems standard track is a suitable type for this draft .
>
> Cheers,
> Tianran
>
> From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> mohamed.boucad...@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 11:47
k,
> which is similar to draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type, for
> IPFIX IE.
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8549/
> [Med] This is document is not similar as it includes many normative
> statements.
>
> IMO, it seems standard track is a suitable type for this draft
tatements.
>
> IMO, it seems standard track is a suitable type for this draft .
>
> Cheers,
> Tianran
>
> From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> mohamed.boucad...@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 1
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
Subject: [OPSAWG] Shepherd Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type
Hi Thomas, all,
I made a shepherd review of the document. The review can be found at:
ยท pdf:
https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/dra
;
opsawg-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg-cha...@ietf.org>
Cc : opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
Objet : Re: [OPSAWG] Shepherd Review of
draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type
Hi Thomas,
Thank you for promptly addressing the comments.
Looks good to me, but idnits is still not
ix-mpls-sr-label-t...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-t...@ietf.org>;
opsawg-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg-cha...@ietf.org>
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
Subject: [OPSAWG] Shepherd Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type
Hi Thomas,
On Behalf Of
mohamed.boucad...@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 11:47 PM
To:
draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-t...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-t...@ietf.org>;
opsawg-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg-cha.
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:
O
: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 11:47 PM
To:
draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-t...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-t...@ietf.org>;
opsawg-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg-cha...@ietf.org>
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
Subject: [OPSAWG] Shepherd Review of dra
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
M
To: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-t...@ietf.org; opsawg-cha...@ietf.org
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: [OPSAWG] Shepherd Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type
Hi Thomas, all,
I made a shepherd review of the document. The review can be found at:
* pdf:
https://github.com/
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:
https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/raw/master/draft-ietf-drip-re
12 matches
Mail list logo
