I think that I should enter an RFC editor's note to correct this.
Ross
At 06:05 PM 10/20/2006 -0400, Lou Berger wrote:
Pasi,
Good catch. Section 9.4., Secondary Record Route Object should
have suggested 199.
Lou
At 04:55 AM 10/20/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-segment-recovery-03
Reviewer: Pasi Eronen
Review Date: 2006-10-20
IESG Telechat date: 2006-10-26
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC.
Comments:
I reviewed version -02 of this document during IETF Last Call, and my
comments have been addressed in version -03.
There is one minor nit (but IANA/RFC editor will take care of it):
sections 9.3 and 9.4 suggest the same value (198) forthe
SECONDARY_EXPLICIT_ROUTE and SECONDARY_RECORD_ROUTE objects.
Best regards,
Pasi
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
