Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-17: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Link State Routing WG of the IETF.
Title : IS-IS YANG Model Augmentations for Additional
Features - Version 1
Authors : Acee Lindem
Okay. We will make those changes.
Thank you,
Joel
On 6/21/2021 3:06 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
Joel -
In addition to the IANA section changes,
1)Please be sure that the text consistently refers to "Point to Point (P2P) Interface over
LAN" - not simply "Point to Point"
2)I think
Joel -
In addition to the IANA section changes,
1)Please be sure that the text consistently refers to "Point to Point (P2P)
Interface over LAN" - not simply "Point to Point"
2)I think the abstract/introduction should make it clear that this draft is
specifying the management mappings for the
The change Tom has proposed to the IANA considerations section is fine
with me.
If there are other specific changes that will make it clearer, I and my
co-authors are happy to make those. I have tried looking at the text.
Even before you found it misleading, I did conclude that Tom getting
Joel -
I am not objecting to the draft.
I am simply asking for it to be both clear and accurate in what it is actually
doing.
I think Tom has done an excellent job of pointing out the inaccuracies and in
some cases providing proposed revised text.
I would ask you to reread your own draft in
Les, I am missing something ion both your and Tom's comments. 5309
didn't define the ifType. If you look at 5309, it has no IANA
considerations at all.
Yes, this document should talk about 5309 as one of the cases that the
ifType simplifies. And it does.
This documents follows the lead
I am in complete agreement with the points Tom has made.
AFAICT, the only new content in this draft is Section 4 - the rest is either
boilerplate or a repetition of text already present in RFC 5309 or RFC 8343.
Neither the Abstract nor the Introduction makes that clear.
The abstract actually
Tom, 5309 did not define the ifType. Go read 5309. You seem to have
gotten confused by the fact that the IANA entry given to 303 points to
5309. That was done to have some reference (with the consent of the
experts). What we are doing now is providing a better reference. So
yes, this
From: Lsr on behalf of Harold Liu
Sent: 21 June 2021 02:01
Hi Med and All:
Thanks for your helpful comments, I have updated a new version 01 to
follow the comments;
The main updating is:
1. More clearly described the intend of this draft in the introduction;
2.
10 matches
Mail list logo
