Hi Greg, Thank you for your review and for your opinion of the draft. I fully agree that the intended status must be standards track. I will change it in the next revision.
Regards, Giuseppe From: Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2024 10:20 AM To: opsawg <opsawg@ietf.org>; IETF IPPM WG <i...@ietf.org>; draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-m...@ietf.org Subject: Notes on draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark Dear, Authors et al., thank you for your continued work on the Alternate Marking method. In my opinion, draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark provides an essential IEs making the use of IPFIX operationally viable option for the Alternate Marking method. While I've read the document, it seems that its current track, Informational, may not be consistent with the request for specific actions from IANA. Could it be that the Standard track is more appropriate for the draft? Regards, Greg
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
