Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-shiomoto-ccamp-switch-programming

On 10/08/2011 19:35, Adrian Farrel wrote: Hi Ben, Thanks for reading. Nits/editorial comments: -- section 1, paragraph 4: "...with relation to the programming..." ... in relation to... Yeah. RFC Editor note if Stewart is watching (although I'm guessing the RFC Editor might just fix this any

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-shiomoto-ccamp-switch-programming

On Aug 10, 2011, at 1:35 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Disagree. The caveat is that we are defining something different. We are > looking > at the case where we want to know that it is safe to start sending data. We > are > using the existence of some "SHOULD" statements in related RFCs that descr

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-shiomoto-ccamp-switch-programming

Hi Ben, Thanks for reading. > Nits/editorial comments: > > -- section 1, paragraph 4: "...with relation to the programming..." > > ... in relation to... Yeah. RFC Editor note if Stewart is watching (although I'm guessing the RFC Editor might just fix this anyway). > -- 3.1, last paragraph: >

[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-shiomoto-ccamp-switch-programming

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at . Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-shiomoto-ccamp-switch-programming