[Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-segment-recovery-03
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
[Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-segment-recovery-03
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
