Hi all,
There's enough that will be changing yet that I'll mark this as "Revised
I-D needed" in the datatracker rather than starting an IETF Last Call
directly.
We'll also need to change the "Intended RFC Status" field in the
datatracker to match the Proposed Standard target.
Without further ado
Hi Ben,
thank you for this in-depth review.
I have prepared a pull request with resulting changes at
https://github.com/cabo/ace-aif/pull/1
Depending on further feedback from you and from the WG, I plan to submit the
resulting updated I-D on Monday.
> On 2022-02-11, at 05:20, Benjamin Kaduk
Thank you very much Carsten!
Yours,
Daniel
From: Carsten Bormann
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 12:48 PM
To: Benjamin Kaduk
Cc: draft-ietf-ace-aif@ietf.org; Ace Wg
Subject: Re: AD review of draft-ietf-ace-aif-04
Hi Ben,
thank you for this in-depth r
On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 06:48:21PM +0100, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> thank you for this in-depth review.
>
> I have prepared a pull request with resulting changes at
>
> https://github.com/cabo/ace-aif/pull/1
>
> Depending on further feedback from you and from the WG, I plan to submi
Hi Ben,
thank you for the additional comments.
I have prepared another small pull request with resulting changes at
https://github.com/cabo/ace-aif/pull/2
>>>
>>> Abstract, Introduction
>>>
>>> Seeing ~identical abstract and introduction always makes me wonder if
>>> there's a way to pare do
Hi Carsten,
On Sun, Feb 13, 2022 at 01:27:29AM +0100, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> thank you for the additional comments.
>
> I have prepared another small pull request with resulting changes at
>
> https://github.com/cabo/ace-aif/pull/2
Thanks, looks good.
> >>>
> >>> Abstract, Int
