Re: [Lsr] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-12: (with COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>]

Hi Peter!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: iesg <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Peter Psenak
> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 4:39 AM
> To: Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-12: (with
> COMMENT)
> 
> Hi Roman,
> 
> On 20/05/2020 00:01, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker wrote:
> > Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc-12: No Objection
> >
> > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut
> > this introductory paragraph, however.)
> >
> >
> > Please refer to
> > https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-mpls-elc/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Two editorial nits:
> > ** Section 3.  Editorial.  s/ When a router propagates a prefix
> > between ISIS levels ([RFC5302],/When a router propagates a prefix
> > between ISIS levels [RFC5302],/

"(RFC[5302]," --> "[RFC5302],"  There was an extra open "(".

> I must be missing something, but what's the diff between the original and
> proposed text?
> 
> >
> > ** Section 4.  Figure 2.  The text says that “A MSD-Type Code 2 has
> > been assigned by IANA”, but Figure 2 says “MSD-Type=TBD2”.
> 
> the figure 2 has been removed based on the previous comments.

Great!  You already fixed it.  I was behind on the updates.

Thanks,
Roman

> thanks,
> Peter
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >