Hi Tony, Sue, et al, I’ve added the shepherd write-up for the document. It is ready for AD review. Thanks, Acee > On Jun 8, 2023, at 12:53 PM, Tony Li <tony.li@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi Acee, > > These issues have been addressed: > > - The technical sections have been checked against implementations. The implementations have been found to be non-existant. All existing implementations only deal with the P2P case. > > - We’ve added an informative reference. -14 published with the update. > > Thanks, > Tony > > >> On Jun 5, 2023, at 10:30 AM, Acee Lindem <acee.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi Sue, >> >> Thanks for your review of a fairly large specifying complex functionality required prior IGP expertise. >> >> Authors, >> >> Please address Sue’s comments. >> >> Thanks, >> Acee (as document Shepherd) >> >>> On Jun 5, 2023, at 13:21, Susan Hares via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Reviewer: Susan Hares >>> Review result: Ready >>> >>> The document is written in a clear and concise manner. >>> The authors have done an excellent job of making a difficult subject clear and >>> readable. >>> >>> Two technical sections should be checked against implementations of IS-IS with >>> dense flooding (section 6.6.2.1 and section 6.6.2.2. I am not implementing so >>> this check is beyond my capabilities. >>> >>> Editorial nit: >>> section 3, requirement 3, sentence 2. "Just addressing a complete bipartite >>> topology such as K5, 8 is insufficient." An informative reference to K5,8 or a >>> bipartite topology might be helpful to readers. This is an optional editorial >>> comment. >>> >>> >> > -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
