[Gen-art] RE: gen-art review of draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-09.txt

Comment about DHCPv6 question in line... - Ralph -Original Message- From: Soliman, Hesham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 11/22/2006 4:51 AM To: Scott W Brim; General Area Review Team; Jari Arkko; Mark Townsley (townsley); Bob Hinden; Brian Haberman; Thomas Narten; Erik Nordmark; Wi

Re: [Gen-art] Genart Review for draft-ietf-dkim-base-06

err... make that very well thought out... Ron Bonica wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft, currently on an IESG > telechat agenda. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > . > > IMO, this draft is very will t

[Gen-art] Genart Review for draft-ietf-dkim-base-06

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft, currently on an IESG telechat agenda. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at . IMO, this draft is very will thought out and ready for publication. R

[Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mip6-ikev2-ipsec-07.txt

Vijay Devarapalli wrote: 1) In S4, the authors state that "Many of the requirements are repeated from RFC3776 to make this document self-contained and complete." There are a fair number of requirements in subsequent sub-sections. It may help if the authors tag each requirement that was already

Re: [Gen-art] RE: gen-art review of draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-09.txt

I only have one question left. Are anycast addresses taken from a special pool? I didn't think so. Is it possible for me to first be told about a prefix by router A, and then an anycast address that is within that prefix by router B? Since anycast addresses have the override flag set to 0, what

RE: [Gen-art] RE: Gen-ART review ofdraft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3734bis-04.txt

Oops - I missed the fact that this was intended for Draft Standard as opposed to recycling at Proposed Standard (mea culpa). What Ted suggests makes fine sense given the desire to advance this draft to DS. Sorry/Thanks, --David David L. Black,

Re: [Gen-art] RE: gen-art review of draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-09.txt

Jari Arkko wrote: ... (As a point of formality, I'm NOT requiring the authors or the WG to add the explanations for this particular spec unless they want to. I would like to see the other issues addressed/ discussed from the review, though. It would be great if you could converge that part of the

[Gen-art] RE: Gen-ART review of draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3733bis-05

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 4:34 AM > To: gen-art@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Hollenbeck, Scott > Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3733bis-05 > > Gen-ART review of draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc373

[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3733bis-05

Gen-ART review of draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3733bis-05 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 b

Re: [Gen-art] RE: gen-art review of draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-09.txt

I have pretty much the same view as Brian has below. Indeed, explanation of SHOULDs is often very useful. For instance, we have seen many cases where IPv6 or some other technology is misapplied by folks who interpret SHOULDs without complete understanding of what the implications are. However, ad