On 04/03/2017 13:28, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Charlie Perkins wrote:
> > I probably should have said more. I just meant that such nodes ought
> to be
> > allowed to have some network interfaces that do not participate in
> GRASP.
> > Please excuse the unclear brevity of my rem
Charlie Perkins wrote:
> I probably should have said more. I just meant that such nodes ought to
be
> allowed to have some network interfaces that do not participate in GRASP.
> Please excuse the unclear brevity of my remark.
Yes. generally, GRASP will be running over virtual inte
On 04/03/2017 10:07, Charlie Perkins wrote:
> Hello Brian,
>
> I probably should have said more. I just meant that such nodes ought to
> be allowed to have some network interfaces that do not participate in
> GRASP. Please excuse the unclear brevity of my remark.
No problem. This was a gap in
Hello Brian,
I probably should have said more. I just meant that such nodes ought to
be allowed to have some network interfaces that do not participate in
GRASP. Please excuse the unclear brevity of my remark.
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 3/1/2017 5:25 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Hi Charlie,
Hi Charlie,
While reviewing your comments, I came upon one that I don't understand:
> 3.5.6.1. Flooding
> ...
> A GRASP device with multiple link-layer interfaces (typically a
> router) MUST support synchronization flooding on all interfaces. If
> it receives a multicast Flood Synchron
Thanks, Joel!
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 11:41:15AM -0800, Joel Halpern wrote:
> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IE
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review result: Ready with Nits
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
I've now had a first look through Charlie's detailed comments.
Most of them are "OK, we can clarify or fix that." A handful
I personally would argue against (but I think even those indicate
that some clarification is needed). However, I don't think we
want to do that without some AD/WG Chair guidan
Charlie,
CC to i...@ietf.org dropped for now, we don't need to bore
everybody. I have Bcc'ed Benoit since I mention him below.
Thanks for the careful review, it's just what we needed.
For now, just a few top level comments below:
On 14/02/2017 09:36, Charles Perkins wrote:
> Reviewer: Charles Pe
