Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis-06

Dear Peter, The two OLD nits are already fixed in my local copy. As for the new one, I'm generating the references automatically. The RFC Editor can fix this if needed. Thanks. Cheers, Med >-Message d'origine- >De : Peter Yee [mailto:pe...@akayla.com] >Envoyé : samedi 6 avril 2013 01:

Re: [Gen-art] [pkix] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pkix-rfc2560bis-15

It is impossible to write a text that cannot deliberately be misunderstood. This debate is so full of constructed, non-existent problems. Nothing has changed for the clients. The client can receive an error, or they can receive (good, revoked or unknown). The meaning of those responses are pretty

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-savi-threat-scope-07

On Apr 9, 2013, at 6:36 PM, Russ Housley wrote: > Thanks for your efforts on this document. Your first review was in May 2011, > and the document has improved greatly for you continued pushing on the > concerns. Can we take this to mean that the concerns expressed in your now-deprecated DISCU

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-savi-threat-scope-07

David: Thanks for your efforts on this document. Your first review was in May 2011, and the document has improved greatly for you continued pushing on the concerns. Russ On Apr 3, 2013, at 1:04 PM, Black, David wrote: > The -07 version of this draft resolves all of the issues raised by the G

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking-07

Med, Thanks for the swift response to my review. See my one reply inline. Kind regards, -Peter >>Page 13, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: what's meant here is if any PCP >>error other than a short-lifetime error, or in the case of a failed >>resend, any PCP

Re: [Gen-art] Genart review of draft-saintandre-urn-example-04

Hi, The suggested change looks ok to me. Thanks! Regards, Christer Sent from Windows using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -Original Message- From: Peter Saint-Andre [psain...@cisco.com] To: Jari Arkko [jari.ar...@piuha.net] CC: Christer Holmberg [christer.holmb...@ericsson.com]; gen-

Re: [Gen-art] [pkix] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pkix-rfc2560bis-15

> It may be useful to keep in mind that the CA may have issued the "non-issued" certificate [Piyush] This is what I think will be confusing to many implementers :), who did not participate in the WG discussions. But then, it is an assumption on my part and you for one have proved that the assumpti

[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ring-protection-05

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-mpls-tp-ring-protection-05 Re

Re: [Gen-art] Genart review of draft-saintandre-urn-example-04

Thanks, your text suggestion looks fine to me. jari ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] [pkix] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pkix-rfc2560bis-15

Piyush, > I think I failed to clarify this in my last message. Let me try again. I > based my interpretation on the following response from Stefan : [ ... snip ...] > The above explanation at the minimum indicates the author's intent that > clients should treat such certificates as "revoked" and

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-appsawg-webfinger-12.txt

Thanks for your review and re-review, Brian. I'm basing my evaluation in Thursday's IESG telechat on your review. (As well as thinking some of those privacy issues on my own, too.) Jari On Apr 5, 2013, at 10:04 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft.

[Gen-art] R: Last Call Expired:

Dear all, A new version of the Internet Draft on Flow Selection Techniques has been submitted. It contains the following changes: - A new section illustrating the difference between Intermediate Flow Selection Process and Intermediate Selection Process has been added, - Th

Re: [Gen-art] [pkix] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pkix-rfc2560bis-15

> I'd rather not try to describe what clients should do or expect in terms of > non-issued certificates. > Clients are really not meant to know anything beyond "revoked" = this cert > should not be trusted. [Piyush] Thanks for clarifying your position on this Stefan. This is the position I disagre

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art telechat review: draft-ietf-tls-multiple-cert-status-extension-06

Elwyn, Thanks for your review and re-review. I'm balloting a no-objection based on your review. Jari On Apr 9, 2013, at 3:44 PM, Elwyn Davies wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/

Re: [Gen-art] Genart review of draft-saintandre-urn-example-04

On Apr 9, 2013, at 9:25 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: Thanks for your review, Christer. The document is up for discussion in this week's IESG telechat (on Thursday). Peter: Have you seen Christer's question about Section 2.6? Sorry, I had missed Christer's review. That text is an artifact of when

Re: [Gen-art] Genart review of draft-saintandre-urn-example-04

Thanks for your review, Christer. The document is up for discussion in this week's IESG telechat (on Thursday). Peter: Have you seen Christer's question about Section 2.6? Jari On Mar 25, 2013, at 12:48 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For bac

Re: [Gen-art] [pkix] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pkix-rfc2560bis-15

> I do not see that prohibition in the new text in -16. In the cited email > message, I do see a disagreement between you and Stefan about what > implementations are likely to do, but I don't see any text in the draft that > dictates that implementations must or must not make that interpretation.

Re: [Gen-art] [pkix] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pkix-rfc2560bis-15

On 4/9/13 2:35 PM, "Black, David" wrote: >Again speaking for myself, I think the current text in -16 is ok, in that >I >don't see the prohibition that Piyush is concerned about there. OTOH, >I'd also >be ok with a couple of sentences added to say that (new) clients could use >that response forma

Re: [Gen-art] [pkix] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pkix-rfc2560bis-15

> I guess it would be okay if you and David make the determination that this > issue is not worth debating anymore but I would surely have appreciated > hearing the opinions of a few others. I'm not sure how much of a say I have in that determination - Sean (as AD) is absolutely free to acknowledg

[Gen-art] Gen-art telechat review: draft-ietf-tls-multiple-cert-status-extension-06

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document:draft-ietf-tls-multiple-c

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking-07

Dear Peter, Thanks for the review. Please see inline. Cheers, Med >-Message d'origine- >De : Peter Yee [mailto:pe...@akayla.com] >Envoyé : mardi 9 avril 2013 10:13 >À : draft-ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking@tools.ietf.org >Cc : gen-art@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org >Objet : Gen-ART review

[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking-07

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-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking-07 R