This sentence is clear enough to address my concern.
Thank you!
Julien
On 07/03/2019 15:00, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> Hi Julien,
>
> My bad!
> I did some digging and we added this based on Adrian's comment [1]
> back in Feb last year (and my memory failed me).
>
> How about -
>
> The Assoc-ty
Hi Julien,
My bad!
I did some digging and we added this based on Adrian's comment [1] back in
Feb last year (and my memory failed me).
How about -
The Assoc-type MAY appear more than once in the OP-CONF-ASSOC-RANGE
TLV in the case of a non-contiguous Operator-configured Association
Rang
Hi Dhruv,
Congratulation from the prompt update. I'm fine with the notation
for ranges.
The only open issue is the text you add below:
- Is there a reason to prohibit, for a given Association type, split
operator-configured ranges? I don't think this is what the original
version suggested.
- Ass
Hi Julien,
Thanks for your detailed review and providing suggested text.
Here is the working copy -
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody-huawei/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-association-group-08.txt
Diff -
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-pce-association-group-06&url2=https
Hi authors,
Please find below the comments to be resolved to move
draft-ietf-pce-association-group forward. Most of them are editorial, so
this looks promising.
Thanks,
Julien
--
Abstract
---
- "LSP[s]" should be expanded at first use, all the more as it has 5
listed expansions in RFC Edit
