[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-hubmib-rfc3636bis-05

2006-10-23 Thread Pasi.Eronen 

Document: draft-ietf-hubmib-rfc3636bis-05
Reviewer: Pasi Eronen 
Review Date: 2006-10-23
IETF LC Date: 2006-10-19 
IESG Telechat date: (not known yet)

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC.

Comments: 

I found nothing to complain about. I'm not qualified to review the
MIB change details, but I trust the MIB Doctors will review (or have 
already reviewed) them.

Best regards,
Pasi

___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

[Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-segment-recovery-03

2006-10-23 Thread Ross Callon 

I think that I should enter an RFC editor's note to correct this.

Ross

At 06:05 PM 10/20/2006 -0400, Lou Berger wrote:

Pasi,
Good catch.  Section 9.4., Secondary Record Route Object should 
have suggested 199.


Lou

At 04:55 AM 10/20/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-segment-recovery-03
Reviewer: Pasi Eronen
Review Date: 2006-10-20
IESG Telechat date: 2006-10-26

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC.

Comments:

I reviewed version -02 of this document during IETF Last Call, and my
comments have been addressed in version -03.

There is one minor nit (but IANA/RFC editor will take care of it):
sections 9.3 and 9.4 suggest the same value (198) forthe
SECONDARY_EXPLICIT_ROUTE and SECONDARY_RECORD_ROUTE objects.

Best regards,
Pasi



___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

[Gen-art] RE: GenART re-review of draft-orly-atommib-rfc3895bis-01.txt

2006-10-23 Thread Black_David 
Orly,

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for 
draft-orly-atommib-rfc3895bis-01.txt .

For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
.

This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC.

The minor issue identified in the GenART review of the
-00 version has been corrected.

Thanks,
--David

David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754


___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

[Gen-art] RE: Gen ART review of draft-ietf-avt-compact-bundled-evrc-11.txt

2006-10-23 Thread Black_David 
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) 
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see 
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). 

Document:
   Enhancements to RTP Payload Formats for EVRC Family Codecs
   draft-ietf-avt-compact-bundled-evrc-11.txt 

Reviewer: David L. Black
Review Date: October 23, 2006
IETF LC Date: Ended October 9, 2006
IESG telechat Date: October 26, 2006

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC

Comments:

All of the issues identified in the GenART review of the -09 version
have been satisfactorily addressed.  The IANA Considerations section
is brief, but adequate, and IANA knows how to ask questions if there
is any uncertainty about what needs to be done.

Thanks,
--David

David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754


___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

[Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-segment-recovery-03

2006-10-23 Thread Lou Berger 

Hi Ross,
Given 198 just got assigned to an unrelated object, I have 
no doubt that IANA will catch this...


Lou

At 01:43 PM 10/23/2006, Ross Callon wrote:


I think that I should enter an RFC editor's note to correct this.

Ross

At 06:05 PM 10/20/2006 -0400, Lou Berger wrote:

Pasi,
Good catch.  Section 9.4., Secondary Record Route Object 
should have suggested 199.


Lou

At 04:55 AM 10/20/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-segment-recovery-03
Reviewer: Pasi Eronen
Review Date: 2006-10-20
IESG Telechat date: 2006-10-26

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC.

Comments:

I reviewed version -02 of this document during IETF Last Call, and my
comments have been addressed in version -03.

There is one minor nit (but IANA/RFC editor will take care of it):
sections 9.3 and 9.4 suggest the same value (198) forthe
SECONDARY_EXPLICIT_ROUTE and SECONDARY_RECORD_ROUTE objects.

Best regards,
Pasi








___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art