I think the draft should say on top that it updates RFC7012, as it mentions
that the draft extends the information model in 7012. Otherwise please
explain why not?
AB
On Thursday, February 13, 2014, joel jaeggli wrote:
A new version of this document has been released.
this addresses comments recieved during last call.
the diff1 is here
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&url2=draft-yourtchenko-cisco-ies-10.txt
On 1/21/14, 4:33 AM, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Cisco Specific Information Elements reused in IPFIX'
<draft-yourtchenko-cisco-ies-09.txt> as Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org <javascript:;> mailing lists by 2014-02-18.
Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org <javascript:;> instead. In either case,
please
retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
Abstract
This document describes some additional Information Elements of Cisco
Systems, Inc. that are not listed in RFC3954.
The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yourtchenko-cisco-ies/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yourtchenko-cisco-ies/ballot/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.