Re: [IPFIX] RFC5101bis revision

Hi Brian,

Let's see the changes first.  If it is just this one semantical change, we
can also ask explicitly for agreement on this update on the mailing list.

Thanks,
    Juergen


On 11.12.12 14:40, "Brian Trammell" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Greetings, all,
>
>Thanks to all for the comments on 5101bis; I'll be pulling these together
>and putting out a -04 revision, hopefully early next week, including all
>of the indicated edits for which discussion doesn't appear necessary, or
>for which text needs to be generated for further discussion.
>
>Given that there's at least one discussion that will lead to a semantic
>change in 5101bis -- namely, handling wraparound and eras explicitly in
>the timestamp data types -- I presume the resulting revision will require
>another WGLC.
>
>Thanks again, best regards,
>
>Brian
>_______________________________________________
>IPFIX mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix

_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix