Re: [Sidrops] AD review of draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-egress.

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 3:47 PM Randy Bush <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > 1: The document says: Updates: 6811 (if approved) please add a
> > sentence to the Abstract saying how / what it updates in 6811.
>
> stole your text, tyvm, but added to intro not abstract
>
> > 2: Please use the updated (RFC8174) requirements language - I've
> > included it below for easy copy-n-paste.
>
> sure
>
> > 3: Please include an index  - assuming you are using xml2rfc, <?rfc
> > toc="yes" ?> should do it for you....
>
> you are welcome for the now less short document
>
> > 4: Help my understand / justify why this is Standards Track and not
> > BGP or Informational. The Shepherd writeup just says Standards Track
> > with no explanation as to *why*. I suspect that the "Updates: 6811"
> > might be the justification/
>
> ask warren.  he might have a good explanation. :)  but i do not believe
> this belongs in the document.  whack me otherwise.
>

Ah, I was meaning just let me know via email, not in the document -
apologies for not being clear.


>
> -01 published
>

Thanks, I'll kick off IETF LC.
W



>
> randy
>


-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in
the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
pants.
   ---maf