RE: [Idr] [mpls] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l3vpn-pmsi-registry-02

Martin:
Agreed.  I was trying to do a  +1  to Eric's suggestion without using it
since +1 is now politically incorrect (PI). 

Sue

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Vigoureux [mailto:martin.vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 9:55 AM
To: Susan Hares; erosen@cisco.com
Cc: mpls@ietf.org; l3vpn@ietf.org; idr@ietf.org; idr-chairs@tools.ietf.org;
l3vpn-chairs@tools.ietf.org; rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org;
mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] [mpls] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l3vpn-pmsi-registry-02

Sue,

I guess what Eric says is that if it effectively does, then this should be
indicated in the header and mentioned in the Abstract/intro.

-m

Le 13/06/2014 15:49, Susan Hares a écrit :
> Eric:
>
> It relates and it updates the IANA section in RFC6514.
>
> Sue
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eric Rosen
> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 9:01 AM
> To: Martin Vigoureux
> Cc: mpls@ietf.org; l3vpn@ietf.org; idr@ietf.org; 
> idr-chairs@tools.ietf.org; l3vpn-chairs@tools.ietf.org; 
> rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org; mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Idr] [mpls] WG Last Call on 
> draft-ietf-l3vpn-pmsi-registry-02
>
>
> I support this document; however, I think it should be categorized as 
> an Update to RFC 6514.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
>
>