I don't see an IPR disclosure against this draft (not even a 3rd party
one). I take it that the concern is related to the disclosure at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/CERTICOM-IPSEC-ECC ?
As Russ said, there are precedents for this way to deal with
IPR - in fact if we have failed to get an IPR
This is a Gen-ART review.
For Gen-ART info, see this
URL:http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html
Document: draft-ietf-ips-scsi-mib-08.txt
Reviewer: Harald Alvestrand
Date: Jan 17, 2006
Summary: Excellent document, two important comments.
I enjoyed reading this document! - the
Spencer - It turns out this draft has a *very* long history. It is intended
to document the use of some optinos that date back to a time when IANA
handed out options codes for DHCP options *before* the defining RFC was
published. The current process for assigning option codes is defined in RFC
Harald,
Thanks for the review. We clearly need to respin the document. Let
me try to deal with your comments, as I'm the responsible WG chair:
[SAM-2] and [SPC2] are normative references (defines format for ScsiLUN
and
other things), but are listed as Working Drafts in the REFERENCE clauses
Thanks for the quick feedback, David!
I'm happy to leave this in your hands - one comment only:
--On tirsdag, januar 17, 2006 11:02:36 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The term running at high speed is a gating criterion for whether or
not the HS counters are mandatory, but I can't see that
Hi all,
I've uploaded the reviews received thus far:
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-by-reviewer.html
Let me know any if you see any errors or omissions.
Also, I'll be doing a round of LC reviews later today as there's one
