"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsb...@cisco.com> writes: > Thanx for your detailed review. I have elected to copy the WG on my > reply as you also sent a copy of your review to the WG.
I'm not sure if it is formally specified, but it seems to me that a Gen-Art review really should be copied to the WG. > It therefore has to be considered whether making many of the > changes you suggest might unintentionally suggest a substantive change > where none is intended. Of course, my comments are only a review. Looking over them again, none seem to technically critical; the ones with technical content are improving the explanations of features that people (seem to be) implementing correctly now. So I don't see any reason to object to minimizing changes from RFC 4971. > [Les:] You refer here to the extended TLVs defined in RFC 7356 > (pretty good find for someone who is not supposed to be an IS-IS > expert :-) ). I looked at the type codepoint registry, and there were values over 255 (though unassigned), which was inconsistent with the text of draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis. So it was just a matter of tracking down what defined the alternative format. Dale _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
