Hi Tom,
On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 9:48 PM tom petch wrote:
> I see that this is scheduled for a IESG Telechat 3feb22 which may
> influence the appropriate action.
>
> The various ...art reviews have introduced a number of changes to this
> and other I2NSF I-D with the effect of introducing inconsi
I see that this is scheduled for a IESG Telechat 3feb22 which may
influence the appropriate action.
The various ...art reviews have introduced a number of changes to this
and other I2NSF I-D with the effect of introducing inconsistencies.
Thus 'nsf-facing' now has expanded description clauses (
Hi Tom,
I believe that I have addressed all of your concerns in the following
revision:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-22
tcp-flags is named flags because their base identity is tcp and the
redundancy of naming is removed.
I will make sure that all of
Hi Paul!
(adding I2NSF and document alias like an official response to a
directorate review)
Thanks for this review. A response below and the authors/WG can correct me.
Chipping in as a WG member, my words of 2021 (2022, 2023...) are
coherence and silos.
This I-D is one of a set of five,
Hi Roman,
I will review your responses this weekend.
Thanks.
Best Regards,
Paul
2022년 1월 6일 (목) 오후 5:54, Roman Danyliw 님이 작성:
> Hi Paul!
> (adding I2NSF and document alias like an official response to a
> directorate review)
>
> Thanks for this review. A response below and the authors/WG can c
Hi Paul!
(adding I2NSF and document alias like an official response to a directorate
review)
Thanks for this review. A response below and the authors/WG can correct me.
> -Original Message-
> From: secdir On Behalf Of Paul Wouters
> Sent: Monday, November 29, 2021 4:06 PM
> To: secdir
