Hi Chris,
Thanks for the review. I'm updating the document to reflect your proposals.
Couple of comments:
- s/"otherwise the standard IP convergence MUST be used."/ "otherwise
the standard IP convergence MUST used". It does not sound good to me but may be
because of an English grammar
Stephane,
See responses inline with [CB].
Chris
From: stephane.litkow...@orange.com [mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 8:25 AM
To: Chris Bowers
Cc: RTGWG ; draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-de...@tools.ietf.org
Subject: RE: shepherd feedback and idnits on draft-ietf-rtgwg
Thanks Chris, I will post a new revision with those changes.
From: Chris Bowers [mailto:cbow...@juniper.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 16:05
To: LITKOWSKI Stephane OBS/OINIS
Cc: RTGWG; draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-de...@tools.ietf.org
Subject: RE: shepherd feedback and idnits on draft-ietf-rtgwg-u
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Routing Area Working Group WG of the IETF.
Title : Micro-loop prevention by introducing a local
convergence delay
Authors : Stephane Litkowski
Dear RTGWG,
I am a co-author, and I support the draft.
I am not aware of any relevant IPR.
Chris
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Tantsura [mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 2:46 PM
To: RTGWG
Cc: 'rtgwg-chairs' ;
draft-bryant-rtgwg-param-s...@ietf.org
Subject