Hi Brian, > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 2:53 AM > To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL); draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis....@ietf.org; > General Area Review Team > Subject: Re: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-03 > > Hi Al, > > On 03/08/2015 06:45, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) wrote: > > <big snip> > > > If we seek to identify several more distinctions for "packets of > > Type-P", then I would prefer to update the RFC 2330 Framework Section > > 13 on this topic, so it's more widely applicable and less IPv4- > centric. > > I'll take immediate steps to accomplish this update. > > Yes, I think that is much more constructive than trying to do it > piecemeal in the 2679bis draft. Perhaps you can contrive to plant a > "forward reference" to 2330bis here, by saying that future extensions of > the "packets of Type-P" definition will apply. That would take care of > all my issues in one go. > > Brian [ACM] Thank you, consider it done. I will make equivalent revisions in RFC2680bis.
regards, Al _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
