[Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-segment-recovery-03
Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net> Mon, 23 October 2006 17:44 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gc3qg-0007Gt-9f; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 13:44:30 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gc3qf-0007Gk-9u for gen-art@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 13:44:29 -0400
Received: from colo-dns-ext1.juniper.net ([207.17.137.57]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gc3qV-0003Sf-HL for gen-art@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 13:44:29 -0400
Received: from magenta.juniper.net (magenta.juniper.net [172.17.28.122]) by colo-dns-ext1.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id k9NHhIX36610; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 10:43:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rcallon@juniper.net)
Received: from rcallon-lt1.juniper.net ([172.23.1.6]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id k9NHh7E35682; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 10:43:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rcallon@juniper.net)
Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20061023134031.041262d0@zircon.juniper.net>
X-Sender: rcallon@zircon.juniper.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 13:43:02 -0400
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com
From: Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061020180450.05722548@labn.net>
References: <B356D8F434D20B40A8CEDAEC305A1F2403495AB7@esebe105.NOE.Noki a.com> <B356D8F434D20B40A8CEDAEC305A1F2403495AB7@esebe105.NOE.Nokia.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b
Cc: ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org, gen-art@ietf.org, dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be, adrian@olddog.co.uk, ibryskin@movaz.com, lberger@labn.net
Subject: [Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-segment-recovery-03
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: gen-art-bounces@ietf.org
I think that I should enter an RFC editor's note to correct this. Ross At 06:05 PM 10/20/2006 -0400, Lou Berger wrote: >Pasi, > Good catch. Section 9.4., Secondary Record Route Object should > have suggested 199. > >Lou > >At 04:55 AM 10/20/2006, Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com wrote: > > >>I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) >>reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see >>http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). >> >>Please wait for direction from your document shepherd >>or AD before posting a new version of the draft. >> >>Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-segment-recovery-03 >>Reviewer: Pasi Eronen >>Review Date: 2006-10-20 >>IESG Telechat date: 2006-10-26 >> >>Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC. >> >>Comments: >> >>I reviewed version -02 of this document during IETF Last Call, and my >>comments have been addressed in version -03. >> >>There is one minor nit (but IANA/RFC editor will take care of it): >>sections 9.3 and 9.4 suggest the same value (198) forthe >>SECONDARY_EXPLICIT_ROUTE and SECONDARY_RECORD_ROUTE objects. >> >>Best regards, >>Pasi _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art