Re: [IPFIX] RFC5101bis revision
Brian Trammell <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipfix |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
hi Juergen, Okay, even better. Again, I haven't had a chance to do a full review of the reviews yet; I'll post on this next week. Thanks, cheers, Brian On 13 Dec 2012, at 12:27, Juergen Quittek <[email protected]> wrote: > 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