Thanks Dhruv for your clarification.
Thanks & Regards,
Mrinmoy
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 11:26 AM Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> Hi Mrinmoy
>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 10:43 AM Mrinmoy Das
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Team,
>>
>> Happy New Year! Hope you all are doing fine.
>>
>> I would like to clarify my
Hi, Ned:
Thanks for your review.
Some detail replies are inline below.
If you have no further comments, I will upload it to address your
concerns/comments then.
Aijun Wang
-邮件原件-
发件人: forwardingalgori...@ietf.org [mailto:forwardingalgori...@ietf.org]
代表 Ned Smith via Datatracker
发送时间:
Hi, Sheng:
Thanks for your review.
I have updated the draft to address your concerns/comments, and will upload
it together with other reviews.
Aijun Wang
-邮件原件-
发件人: forwardingalgori...@ietf.org [mailto:forwardingalgori...@ietf.org]
代表 Sheng Jiang via Datatracker
发送时间: 2024年1月30日 22:56
Looks good. I see Dhruv already pointed out that the new registry needs an
allocation policy. That was my only note. Please go ahead and publish,
including the change Dhruv requested.
Thanks,
—John
> On Jan 31, 2024, at 12:02 PM, Cheng Li wrote:
>
>
> Hi John,
>
> Thank you so much for
Reviewer: Ned Smith
Review result: Has Nits
1) Section 5 header should capitalize "messages"
2) The introduction says, "It is necessary to use the central control mode
described in [RFC8283]". This reads like a mandatory constraint on implementers
but is listed as an informative reference. If the
Hi Cheng,
In Section 9.2 (New SRv6-ERO NAI Type Registry) where you define a new
registry, please add -
The allocation policy for this new registry is by IETF Review [RFC8126].
Thanks!
Dhruv
On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 10:33 PM Cheng Li
wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> Thank you so much for your comments,
