Support, a few comments for clarity: General comment: 1.Have we considered to request early IANA allocation?
2. Section 2 s/ dynamic BGP labels according to RFC8277 [RFC8277]/ dynamic BGP labels [RFC8277] s/ BGP Prefix-SID according to RFC8669 [RFC8669]/ BGP Prefix-SID [RFC8669] s/ in context of Seamless MPLS SR [I-D.hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr]/ in context of Seamless MPLS SR (see section 4.6 of [I-D.hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr]) s/ as described in RFC8661 [RFC8661]./ as described in [RFC8661] Appendix A. 3. Section 4: Suggest to add a note to RFC Editor on code point TBD4 allocation and update. -Qin 发件人: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Tianran Zhou 发送时间: 2021年6月8日 8:56 收件人: opsawg@ietf.org 主题: [OPSAWG] WG Last call for draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type-01 Hi WG, The following draft is mainly to request some IPFIX IE allocations. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-mpls-sr-label-type/ We agreed to fast track this draft and move forward. Now the authors think it’s stable. And we got IE expert reviewed. This mail we start a two weeks WG last call, before June21. Please reply your comments on this. Thanks, Tianran
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
