> From: John G. Scudder [mailto:j...@juniper.net] > Sent: Monday, March 13,
> 2017 9:54 PM
>
> Thanks, Stefano.
>
> Bruno, at your convenience can you confirm that you're satisfied with the
> resolution?
-11 addresses my comments.
Thank you John, Stefano.
> Looks
> OK to me even though
Thanks, Stefano.
Bruno, at your convenience can you confirm that you're satisfied with the
resolution? Looks OK to me even though the changes don't precisely adhere to
your suggestions ("Link NLRI uses the Protocol-ID value" instead of "Link NLRI
uses the BGP Protocol-ID value"). The rfcdiff is
John, Bruno,
sorry for having missed that. I’ll resubmit right now. I integrated all
comments. Regarding the missing "section 3.1" (referring to the isis draft), I
replaced text with the reference to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext
which defines the bgp-ls tlv for advertising the SRGB
Hi Authors,I see that yesterday's -10 revision doesn't address Bruno's comments, below. Can you please either update the document if you accept Bruno's suggestions, or otherwise discuss them on the list? We can't declare the WGLC to be satisfactorily finished until this is resolved.Thanks,--JohnOn
Hi:
I've reviewed this document and believe it is ready for publication.
Thanks
Regards … Zafar
From: Idr on behalf of Susan Hares
Date: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 6:34 PM
To: "i...@ietf.org"
Cc: "spring@ietf.org"
Subject: [Idr] IDR WG 2 week WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-rout
