[Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-alto-server-discovery-08

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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-alto-server-discovery-08 Rev

[Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-avtcore-avp-codecs-02.txt

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

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-thornburgh-adobe-rtmfp-07

On Jun 20, 2013, at 10:12 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > p.s. I started a much more detailed response to Ben, but I think > the essence of it is above. IMO, a discussion that amounts to > whether or not an AD used bad judgment by choosing to sponsor an > individual Informational submission (or whe

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-thornburgh-adobe-rtmfp-07

On Jun 20, 2013, at 9:14 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: > -- Why does this need to be published as an IETF stream RFC? If I understand > correctly, this documents an existing protocol as implemented by commercial > products. I agree with Martin's comment that there is value in publishing > this sort

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-thornburgh-adobe-rtmfp-07

--On Thursday, June 20, 2013 22:14 -0400 Barry Leiba wrote: > FWIW, the IESG has discussed this in the context of other > documents, and is looking at boilerplate that does not say > that the document is a "product of the IETF", and makes it > clear that the content is not a matter of IETF con

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-thornburgh-adobe-rtmfp-07

> > -- Why does this need to be published as an IETF stream RFC? If I > understand correctly, this documents an existing protocol as implemented by > commercial products. I agree with Martin's comment that there is value in > publishing this sort of thing, but I applaud the Adobe and the author fo

[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-thornburgh-adobe-rtmfp-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-thornburgh-adobe-rtmfp-07 Reviewe

[Gen-art] Assignments for the 2013-06-27 telechat

Hi all, The following reviewers have assignments: Reviewer LC end Draft Alexey Melnikov2013-06-07 draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-08 ** Ben Campbell 2013-06-25 dr

[Gen-art] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 2013-06-20

Hi all, The following reviewers have assignments: Reviewer LC end Draft - Alexey Melnikov 2013-07-03 draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-ropt-06 Ben Campbell 2013-07-16 draft-yusef-dispatch-ccmp-indicat

Re: [Gen-art] [abfab] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-abfab-eapapplicability-03

I think this is ok, but my email client isn't distinguishing the new vs. old text. If it's just changes to produce this new bullet, I have a small edit: o Channel binding MUST be used for all application authentication. The EAP server MUST either require that the correct EAP lower-layer attribut

Re: [Gen-art] [abfab] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-abfab-eapapplicability-03

I'm fine with this text. Either with eap-lower-layer as a MUST or the more complex version. ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art