Bit disappointed that this is a Discuss.
But let's discuss it.
Ron's point, part of the OPS-DIR review, look valid to me. Can we please
discuss it.
This document is well written and well thought out. It is almost ready
for publication with one small issue.
In Section 2.3, the authors
Hi Alia,
Yeah, the this implies follows from the previous sentence that contains a
SHOULD NOT and so this sentence is a descriptive annotation to the previous
sentence.
The subsequence sentence is back into the world of normative text.
A
-Original Message-
From: iesg
Thanks,
I'll turn the handle.
A
-Original Message-
From: iesg [mailto:iesg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of David Smith (djsmith)
Sent: 05 February 2015 18:00
To: adr...@olddog.co.uk; Benoit Claise (bclaise); 'The IESG'
Cc: rbon...@juniper.net; thomas.mo...@rd.francetelecom.com;
Adrian,
PS. Would have helped if the original review had reached the AD,
shepherd, and WG. Maybe also the IETF list.
[RPB]
This is my bad. When I did the OPS-DIR review, I copied
draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-commun...@tools.ietf.org, but not
Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community-09: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup
needed from IESG Evaluation
ID Tracker URL:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community/
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
AdrianIf we had ACCEPT_OWN handling SHOULD be controlled by configuration,
and if controlled by configuration it MUST default to being disabled...
I agree this may be most optimal.
/dave
-Original Message-
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, February 05,
