Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname-22

Thanks for the response! Comments below, eliding the bits I think need no further comment. On Jun 8, 2011, at 12:11 PM, Scott Rose wrote: > Perhaps the document should only update RFC 2672 instead of obsoleting it? That would resolve my concern, if it fits with the intent of the work group.

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat Review of draft-meadors-multiple-attachments-ediint-12

To Pete Resnick, do you want me to correct this whitespace and resubmit? It was not intentional and should be corrected? Kyle Meadors Drummond Group Inc.   * * * I will be out of the office the week of July 4-8 * * * * * * I will be out of the office August 4-5 * * *   * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-l3vpn-ibgp-07

Hi Pedro, Thanks for the quick reply. Please find comments inline. On 11-06-07 07:15 PM, Pedro Marques wrote: Suresh, Thank you for the review. Regarding Section 5: The Length can be either 1 or 2 octets. 4271 defines Attr Flags. Bit 0 is the Optional bit; Bit 1 is the Transitive bit; Bit 3

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-sieve-external-lists-09.txt

Hi Barry, That makes sense. Please consider my concern resolved. Thanks Suresh On 11-06-07 06:36 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: Thanks, Suresh, for the review. This following text is a bit handwavy. Is this by design? How can the sieve implementation identify the list as one that has an open subscr

[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ipfix-configuration-model-09

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at . Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-ipfix-configuration-model-09

[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-dhc-duid-uuid

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at . Please resolve these comments along with any other last call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-dhc-duid-uuid-03 Document t

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname-22

Perhaps the document should only update RFC 2672 instead of obsoleting it? As for the nits: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: > > Nits/editorial comments: -- IDNits has some comments, please check. > -- Abstract: "This is a revision of the original specification in RFC

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname-22

Perhaps the document should only update RFC 2672 instead of obsoleting it? As for the nits: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: > > Nits/editorial comments: -- IDNits has some comments, please check. > -- Abstract: "This is a revision of the original specification in RFC

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04

+1 --On Wednesday, June 08, 2011 12:50 +0100 Alexey Melnikov wrote: > Vint Cerf wrote: > >> setting aside interpretation and semantics for a moment, >> would there be utility in maintaining tables for each >> instance of Unicode? > > Yes, because developers will have different versions of > U

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04

Paul Hoffman wrote: On Jun 7, 2011, at 6:24 PM, John C Klensin wrote: I think this is an improvement but there is one issue about which we have slightly different impressions. I hope the difference can be resolved without needing yet more tedious arguments about documentation. Indeed, if

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04

Vint Cerf wrote: setting aside interpretation and semantics for a moment, would there be utility in maintaining tables for each instance of Unicode? Yes, because developers will have different versions of Unicode available to them. It would also help developers to migrate by seeing what has