Loa,
Thanks for doing the review. I think it may be worthwhile to also send out the
.docx file in addition to the text version.
Bob
> On Jan 19, 2020, at 11:54 PM, Loa Andersson wrote:
>
> WG,
>
> I have reviewed the entire document.
>
> First, I'm not an IPv6 expert.
>
> As far as I
Dear Linda,
Thank you for your email.
Please see inline.
Thanks,
Francois
From: Linda Dunbar
Date: Friday 17 January 2020 at 01:31
To: "draft-ietf-spring-sr-service-programm...@ietf.org"
Cc: SPRING WG
Subject: Can features described by draft-ietf-spring-sr-service-programming-01
be
Hi Loa,
Many thanks for your detailed review – greatly appreciated.
I agree with Bob.
I looked at the text file. The word document will make the comments, clearer.
Please share.
Looking forward to work with you to close on your comments.
Thanks
Regards … Zafar
From: spring on behalf of Bob
To be clear about one of the points in the review, MAY NOT is not allowed by
RFC2119 because it is totally ambiguous in English (since it can mean either
"must not" or "might not"). In any case the phrase "MAY or MAY NOT" is not of
any normative value. It presumably simply means "MAY" in all
Bob,
Here is the docx-file, it is not exactly the same version as I used to
create the txt-file, since I continued to look at the figure for the
reference topology, and in that process I also corrected a spelling
erros and cleared up the text for some comments.
The only real change is that I
Loa,
Thanks, that is very helpful.
Bob
> On Jan 20, 2020, at 6:20 PM, Loa Andersson wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
>
> Here is the docx-file, it is not exactly the same version as I used to
> create the txt-file, since I continued to look at the figure for the
> reference topology, and in that process
