Michael
thanks and I'm okay if y'all are okay (etc etc).
Thanks for addressing my comments
tim
On Sun, Jul 27, 2025 at 5:17 PM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> moving this up away from the nits:
>> > The two figures are very nice, but I would argue they should be
>> placed > after each paragraph describing them, rather together. But I
>> may be > wrong.
>>
>> So you'd move them out of the Architecture which is trying to explain
>> why there are different requirements, into the Protocol solution? You
>> aren't wrong. I don't know, because I know the document too well.
>> Section 4 also has more detailed time-sequence diagrams.
>>
>>
> Actually, more like putting each one after each paragraph in the
> Architecture section which describes them. "For use case one, ...."
> then the diagram. Same for "For use case two...."
> does that make more sense? it's a six of one and when I was reviewing
> it just the back and forth could be avoided some. I will go with
> whatever the consensus says.
I've moved the architecture diagrams up to the spot where they are first
introduced. That meant moving a bit more text around.
It's an update to the PR.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
