Authors, at this point (the IETF LC is over), could you please revise the draft in order to address Vijay's comment?
Thanks, Gonzalo On 01/06/2012 4:27 AM, Qin Wu wrote: > Agree, Thanks! > > Regards! > -Qin > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <ecke...@cisco.com> > To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <v...@bell-labs.com>; > <draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-meas-ident...@tools.ietf.org> > Cc: "General Area Review Team" <gen-art@ietf.org>; "Shida Schubert" > <sh...@ntt-at.com>; "Gonzalo Camarillo" <gonzalo.camari...@ericsson.com> > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 4:51 AM > Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-meas-identity-06 > > > Hi Vijay, > > Thank you for your review. I agree with your comment. It was actually > one of the WGLC comments: > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xrblock/current/msg00395.html > > This comment in particular seems to have fallen through the cracks. > Thanks for catching it. > > Cheers, > Charles > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Vijay K. Gurbani [mailto:v...@bell-labs.com] >> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 1:22 PM >> To: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-meas-ident...@tools.ietf.org >> Cc: General Area Review Team; Charles Eckel (eckelcu); Shida Schubert; >> Gonzalo Camarillo >> Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-meas-identity-06 >> >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on >> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at >> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >> >> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments >> you may receive. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-meas-identity-06 >> Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani >> Review Date: May-31-2012 >> IETF LC End Date: June-14-2012 >> IESG Telechat date: Not known >> >> Summary: This draft is ready as a Proposed Standard; it has one minor >> comment that should be fixed before publication. >> >> Major: 0 >> Minor: 1 >> Nits: 0 >> >> Minor: >> >> - In S6, the text says that "... the use of security mechanisms with >> RTP, as documented in Section 9 of [RFC3550] SHOULD apply." >> >> I am puzzled by the normative language here. Won't it be more > proper >> to simply say that "... the use of security mechanisms with RTP, as >> documented in Section 9 of [RFC3550] apply." >> >> The use of SHOULD seem to indicate that there are certain cases >> during measurement reporting where the security considerations do > not >> apply. Surely you do not mean that, do you? >> >> Thanks, >> >> - vijay >> -- >> Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent >> 1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA) >> Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / vijay.gurb...@alcatel-lucent.com >> Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/ > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
