Huub hi,
The document went through two WG last calls...it is a pity you did not
use the opportunity to provide your useful comment then.
I am surprised that it took you almost two years and seven revisions of
the document before you actually realized you are not happy with the way
we acknowledged
Malcolm,
good that we are making some progress!
On the experimental code point
--
I doesn't seem appropriate to call out the fact that some commercial
products has been using an experimental code point in production
setting!
On the remain (key) disagreements
- Original Message -
From: Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org
To: Roni Even ron.even@gmail.com
Cc: IETF ietf@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 8:50 PM
My reading of question 7 is
that the document shepherd have to ask the authors to confirm the
Loa
The one point that jumps out at me is the proposed text
Other message types should not be carried behind this code point.
or should that be
Other message types SHOULD NOT be carried behind this code point.
which, in IETF-Land, is a bit different.
I prefer the latter.
Tom Petch
-
- Original Message -
From: Alia Atlas akat...@gmail.com
To: Rui Costa rco...@ptinovacao.pt
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 10:07 PM
Rui,
Perhaps more familiarity with the related history over the last
several years would help? I can recommend the MPLS list archives.
- Original Message -
From: Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com
To: t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 12:06 PM
Tom,
I've let this sit a while, but wanted to respond on the following point:
On 3/6/12 4:25 PM, t.petch wrote:
-ur responsibility is to
Tom,
Thank you for both judging consensus (the IESG's job) and instructing
me on how it is done in the IETF (quite useful to me as a WG chair).
Thanks also for cutting my email where I agreed that allocating a
code-point for this particular use was the most tolerable option (I
know the email
Tom,
I have no objections to using the RFC 2119 key words, I am not sure if
that is appropriate in an informational track document, I expect that our
AD will provide some guidance.
Regards,
Malcolm
t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com
23/03/2012 05:50 AM
To
Loa Andersson l...@pi.nu,
A current AD might take precedence over a past one, but back when I was on the
IESG we twice had discussions of the use of RFC2119 keywords in informational
track documents. Both times we fortunately came to the same conclusion - that
it is fine to use RFC2119 keywords in informational (or
Dear all,
I received comments from Daniel regarding the intended use of the optional
active PW selection mechanism in section 5.1. I pasted below the corresponding
paragraph of Section 5.1 with the changes we agreed to underlined.
He also asked if the default active PW selection mechanism
Hallo Nurit,
I will *not* change my mind.
So it is useless to continue this thread.
Just make the changes I requested.
Regards, Huub.
==
On 23-03-12 08:11, Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) wrote:
Huub hi,
The document went through two WG last calls...it is a pity you did
11 matches
Mail list logo