Re: [Idr] WG adoption call for draft-hr-idr-rfc5575bis-02 "Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules"

Hello All,

I support the adoption of your draft. But I want to ask a question. rfc5575bis is for IPv4, as stated in the abstract. However, IPv4 is declared to be historic. Do we still need a RFC specifically designed for IPv4? 

Best Regards,

lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com

From: John G. Scudder
Date: 2017-02-03 03:49
To: idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG adoption call for draft-hr-idr-rfc5575bis-02 "Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules"
Folks, 

It was pointed out to me that due to Chinese New Year, a significant number of WG members may not have had the opportunity to respond (I don't know what everyone else's excuse is...). We will extend the adoption call until February 13 unless there are objections. (If there are objections feel free to unicast them to me, or send them to the list, as you prefer.)

Thanks,

—John

> On Jan 21, 2017, at 10:03 AM, John G. Scudder <jgs@juniper.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> The authors have requested IDR working group adoption of draft-hr-idr-rfc5575bis-02 "Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules". Please send your comments to the list.
> 
> This adoption call will conclude on Monday, February 6.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> —John
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr