I really would like to get the base done - it's been a long time.
Stewart
On 10/10/2013 16:23, Hannes Gredler wrote:
one more reason for making it part of the base spec ;-) - /hannes
On Oct 10, 2013, at 5:14 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
Without doing a whole load of investigation, we should assume
that the IPR disclosures that apply to rlfa apply to this draft.
I will therefore set in place the process to extend the
disclosure.
Stewart
On 01/10/2013 19:07, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
Hi,
Question to the authors of the draft about their intentions, obviously the
basic node protection equation(D_opt(Npq, Dst) < D_opt(Npq, Np) +
Distance_opt(Np, Dst)) is correct, however the rest is more or less
implementation details.
So if the authors would like to share the details about their
implementation should not the Intended Status be Informational?
Cheers,
Jeff
Folks,
Does anyone know whether the draft deal will be treated in the IETF 88?
Regards,
Rogerio Mariano
--
View this message in context:
http://ietf.10.n7.nabble.com/Request-for-review-draft-psarkar-rtgwg-rlfa
-
n
ode-protection-01-txt-tp375714p386321.html
Sent from the IETF - Rtgwg mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
--
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
--
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
