Hi,
My apologies for the delays, but I have now read this document in full and it
is well written. I’ve reviewed the
Proposed registries and values and they reflect similar if not same values and
allocations to what was in RFC7170
And both document and allocations are properly reflected.
I thin
I have read this document multiple times, and when it is published as an RFC it
will clearly meet the requirements for “Specification Required”.
I have looked over the proposed registries and values, and they properly
reflect the allocations in this document. So, I approve this allocation.
H
Dear Margaret Cullen and Nancy Cam-Winget (cc: emu WG),
Sending a follow up on this; as the designated experts for the TEAP Error TLV
(value 5) Error Codes registry, can you review the proposed registration in
draft-ietf-emu-rfc7170bis-15 for us? Please see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draf
Dear Margaret Cullen and Nancy Cam-Winget (cc: emu WG),
As the designated experts for the TEAP Error TLV (value 5) Error Codes
registry, can you review the proposed registration in
draft-ietf-emu-rfc7170bis-15 for us? Please see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-emu-rfc7170bis/
The d
Dear Margaret Cullen and Nancy Cam-Winget (cc: emu WG),
As the designated experts for the TEAP Error TLV (value 5) Error Codes
registry, can you review the proposed registration in
draft-ietf-emu-rfc7170bis-15 for us? Please see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-emu-rfc7170bis/
The d
