Donald:
Thanks for the clarification.
I just cleared.
Alvaro.
On 3/11/17, 5:53 AM, "Donald Eastlake" wrote:
Could you look at version -05 which is intended to resolve your
DISCUSS as discussed below.
___
trill mailing list
trill@ietf.org
https://
Donald:
Hi!
I am not concerned about the case you described below: where the source and
destination are attached to the same switch. Nor am I concerned about transit
TRILL data packets.
I am concerned about the case where the other end stations are not attached to
any of the local switches,
On 8/5/16, 11:46 PM, "Donald Eastlake"
mailto:d3e...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Version -11 of this draft has been posted which is intended to resolve your
DISCUSS.
It does. I'm clearing. Thanks!
Alvaro.
___
trill mailing list
trill@ietf.org
https://www.ie
Donald:
Hi!
Thanks for your answers! I'll clear the DISCUSS once the document is
updated.
Thanks!
Alvaro.
On 7/29/16, 7:19 PM, "Donald Eastlake" wrote:
>Hi Alvaro,
>
>On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 11:13 PM, Alvaro Retana
>wrote:
>> Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
>> dr
On 7/7/16, 10:26 AM, "Donald Eastlake" wrote:
>>
>>I still think (non blocking comment) that treating a received non-zero
>>value as an error adds unnecessary complexity if it can just be ignored.
>>If the Scope feature is ever revived (or any other feature that wants to
>>use the field) then it
On 7/7/16, 1:16 AM, "Donald Eastlake" wrote:
Donald:
Hi!
>>--
>> DISCUSS:
>> --
>>
>> Even though the IANA Considerations section was just updated (in version
