Robert,
Thanks for your comments. -05 of this I-D has been posted.
Lars,
I fixed the references to obsolete standards. As an FYI, I have been relying
on rfc-editor.org check if RFC numbers were obsolete or not. It did not
classify several RFCs as obsolete.
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:
Hi,
On 2008-12-5, at 20:45, Robert Sparks wrote:
To be clear, I'm asking about the limits on the description and
contact fields (text for people and email addresses) in this message,
not the restriction on the netid length.
Do we have, in the creation of other registries, explicit restrictions
On 2008-12-10, at 10:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I fixed the references to obsolete standards.
You fixed some, but not all. I'll leave the following (edited) RFC
Editor Note in place: "Please make the following replacements to the
document references: RFC2960 -> RFC4960, RFC1831 -> draft-i
Russ,
I just compared the -26 and -28 versions of the nfsv4.1 draft.
All of the issues noted in my combined Gen-ART and Transport
review have been satisfactorily addressed in the -28 version,
including the Unicode problem that was the basis for your
Discuss.
Thanks,
--David
p.s. The pNFS block
On Dec 10, 2008, at 6:12 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
Hi,
On 2008-12-5, at 20:45, Robert Sparks wrote:
To be clear, I'm asking about the limits on the description and
contact fields (text for people and email addresses) in this message,
not the restriction on the netid length.
Do we have, in the c
-05 (and whatever gets decided on the registry non-technical field
length limits) addresses all my comments.
RjS
On Dec 10, 2008, at 6:21 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
On 2008-12-10, at 10:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I fixed the references to obsolete standards.
You fixed some, but not all. I'l
Hi Ben,
Sorry for the delay..
Substantive Comments:
-- It is not clear to me why this is to be an informational RFC. It
seems to be defining protocol. If that protocol is not intended to
be a standard, then it would help to have an applicability
statement to that effect.
Good point, w
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.
Document: draft-ietf-soft
Hi all,
I've uploaded some more reviews, including a couple that I had missed
previously. Please let me know if there are any other errors or
omissions. There is one more telechat for this year on the 18th, so
assignments for that telechat and new LC assignments go out tomorrow
night.
Thanks,
M
Miguel,
About the Major issues:
Still the draft have two normative references to two non-publicly
available specifications, namely, [SMPTE-12M] and [smpte-eg40].
As far as I understand they are publicly available for a price.
http://store.smpte.org/category-s/1.htm
I do not see this as a prob
David,
Thanks much for taking the time to read the draft and for providing this
feedback! This is an Ack, we'll reply later, with answers/text to
address these open issues.
Thanks,
--Carlos.
On 12/10/2008 11:47 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said the following:
> I have been selected as the General Area
[Apologies for the lateness of this review. I somehow mis-recorded the
due date. Here's my review hoping late is better than never.]
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/ar
13 matches
Mail list logo
