Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-terminology-08: 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
Hi John,
Your suggestion works for me and I would say is the easiest fix.
Jim
-Original Message-
From: John Scudder
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 1:26 PM
To: James Guichard
Cc: The IESG ; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; lsr ; Acee
Lindem (acee) ; Peter Psenak ; Ketan
Talaulikar ; Lizhenbin
I have an elaboration on one of Jim’s points:
> On May 24, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Jim Guichard via Datatracker
> wrote:
>
> - Section 7.1 SRv6 Locator TLV:
>
>- The text 'Locator continued..' in Figure 5 might be confusing as perhaps
>it is just me but when I initially read it, I thought
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories. This Internet-Draft is a work item of the Link State Routing
(LSR) WG of the IETF.
Title : Update to OSPF Terminology
Authors : Mike Fox
Acee Lindem
The following errata report has been verified for RFC7770,
"Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional Router Capabilities".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7524
--
Status:
Jim Guichard has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-11: 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.)
On May 24, 2023 at 10:07:22 AM, Éric Vyncke wrote:
Hi Éric!
...
> I find interesting that this update to be more inclusive has non-inclusive
> abstract and introduction... There are more than 200 countries (if not
> mistaken) and readers can genuinely wonder which one is referred by "National
Hello Alvaro,
Thanks for qualifying the NIST term.
About the IANA registry, I wonder what is the more important: be pragmatic by
helping people searching for the old/new flag values in IANA or being sensitive
? Noting that the updated RFC will still contain the non-inclusive terms. I do
not
Sorry for the late response. I do not know of any undisclosed IPR on this
document.
Thanks,
Sarah
On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 12:05 AM Christian Hopps wrote:
>
> The WGLC has concluded. The document will be forwarded to IESG for
> publication.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris.
>
> Christian Hopps writes:
>
>
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-terminology-07: 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 refer
John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-11: Yes
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 refer
The Errata should be accepted but with modification of text to “Bit additions”
rather than “TLV additions”.
Corrected Text
--
o The values are defined in Section 2.5. All Router Informational
Capability Bit additions are to be assigned through IETF Review
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7770,
"Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional Router Capabilities".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7524
--
Type:
13 matches
Mail list logo
