f.org'; Daniel Cohn
Cc: 'stbry...@cisco.com'; 'draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-...@tools.ietf.org';
'ietf@ietf.org'; 'Andrew G. Malis'
Subject: RE: [PWE3] Last Call:
(Pseudowire Preferential Forwarding Status Bit) to Proposed Standard
Dear all,
I received comm
, Mustapha (Mustapha)
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 12:56 PM
To: Andrew G. Malis
Cc: stbry...@cisco.com; draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-...@tools.ietf.org;
p...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [PWE3] Last Call:
(Pseudowire Preferential Forwarding Status Bit) to Proposed Standard
makes sense And
Subject: Re: [PWE3] Last Call:
(Pseudowire Preferential Forwarding Status Bit) to Proposed Standard
Mustapha,
You might want to wait for any other LC comments before updating.
Thanks,
Andy
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha)
mailto:mustapha.aissa...@alcatel-lucent.com
ublish a new revision.
>
> Mustapha.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stbry...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 12:48 PM
> To: draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-...@tools.ietf.org
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org; p...@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Last Call:
; p...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: (Pseudowire
Preferential Forwarding Status Bit) to Proposed Standard
Authors
There was on point that I notice that you did not address from the AD review
and so I am picking it up as a LC comment:
In section 10 you say:
"This document make
pwe3-redundancy-...@tools.ietf.org
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; p...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: (Pseudowire
Preferential Forwarding Status Bit) to Proposed Standard
Authors
There was on point that I notice that you did not address from the AD review
and so I am picking it up as a LC comment:
I
[mailto:stbry...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 12:48 PM
> To: draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-...@tools.ietf.org
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org; p...@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Last Call: (Pseudowire
> Preferential Forwarding Status Bit) to Proposed Standard
>
>
> Authors
&
Authors
There was on point that I notice that you did not address
from the AD review and so I am picking it up as a LC comment:
In section 10 you say:
"This document makes the following update to the PwOperStatusTC
textual convention in RFC5542 [8]: "
This update should be recorded in t
