Subject: [mpls] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification-02: (with DISCUSS)

From: Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2019 19:22:22 -0700

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification-02: Discuss

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-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This should be very easy to clear up

* Section 4.3

Since this whole draft is about clarifying Sub-TLV length calculations I think
this section needs to cover the length calculation for the unnumbered Adjacency
Type (Adj. Type 0 in RFC8287).

---

From: "Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2019 02:42:02 +0000

Hi Suresh,

Thank you for the comments. We will update the table with length for Unnumbered Adj-Type as well.

Thanks,
Nagendra

On 8/7/19, 10:22 PM, "Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    

    * Section 4.3

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2019 22:11:25 +0000

> On Aug 7, 2019, at 10:42 PM, Nagendra Kumar Nainar (naikumar) <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Suresh,
> 

Thanks for addressing this Nagendra. I have cleared.

Regards
Suresh