Gray, Eric wrote:
...
The placement of the "Contributors" section is unusual. It occurs before
the table of contents. What would be wrong with listing contributors in
(or around) an "Authors' Addresses" section? I would suggest making two
subsections under "Authors' Addresses" section: Editor
Sally-
> (after all of the co-authors have had a change to see all of the
> changes).
I looked through the diffs between the last version and what is current
in CVS and it all looks fine to me. Thanks to you and Pasi for handling
this stuff.
allman
pgpGMQIiCk1IG.pgp
Description: PGP signa
Francis -
I just submitted a revised version of the draft, and put a copy at:
http://www.icir.org/floyd/papers/draft-ietf-tsvwg-quickstart-07.txt
Let me know what you think. After you are done, then we can
think about who to ask to read it from the ipv6 community...
- Sally
http://www.icir.org
On Oct 3, 2006, at 5:05 PM, Francis Dupont wrote:
In your previous mail you wrote:
We have one detail still to address from your review, and that is to
add a citation about deleting IP options being forbidden, or
"supposed" to be forbidden, for IPv6.
Do you have a citation to sug
In your previous mail you wrote:
I just submitted a revised version of the draft, and put a copy at:
http://www.icir.org/floyd/papers/draft-ietf-tsvwg-quickstart-07.txt
Let me know what you think. After you are done, then we can
think about who to ask to read it from the ipv6 com
In your previous mail you wrote:
I have not included anything about deleting IP options being forbidden
in IPv6. It seems sufficient to me just to have the document say that
the router, when it denies a Quick-Start request, SHOULD either delete
the option or zero the relevant fields
Hi, Uri and Purushottam,
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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Qiaobing,
-- Draft Title
> Section 3.1 is essentially copied from RFC3558 word by word and dealt
> with in the same way here.
>
> Since specifying a widely usable RTP format is NOT the focus of this
> work, we'd propose to remove section 3.1 and keep the current title.
If the authors believe th
