Hi Ramkumar, Thanks for the support suggestion below. A -04 version has been uploaded incorporating your suggestion. See https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-eastlake-trill-vendor-channel-04
Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA [email protected] On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 3:42 AM, R Parameswaran <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > I support the adoption of this draft, please see inline: > > > TRILL WG: > > > > This is a WG adoption call for draft-eastlake-trill-vendor-channel-03.txt > (11/15 to 11/29). > > > > In this WG Adoption call please consider, > > > > 1) Is this vendor specific message channel useful to deployments? > > > [RP]: Yes, the draft provides a framework for potentially useful extensions, > allows vendor specific features, feature prototyping etc.. > > 2) Is this mechanism ready for standardization? The TRILL WG group > must move rapidly from adoption of this draft to WG LC in December? > > > [RP]: Yes in my opinion - I had one suggestion on the body of the text - it > may be useful to add a sentence in Section 3.1 that the flags in the Channel > Header and the semantics of the SL bit are defined in RFC 7178, may help > readers put this draft in context. > > 3) Do you know of any IPR related to this draft? > > > [RP]: Not aware of any IPR relating to this draft. > > > thanks, > > > Ramkumar > > > > Susan Hares > > > > _______________________________________________ > trill mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill > >
_______________________________________________ trill mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
