[Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-lwig-terminology-05.txt

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: d

[Gen-art] FW: Gen-ART Review of draft-housley-ltans-oids-01

Re-sending… Regards, Wassim H. From: Wassim Haddad mailto:wassim.had...@ericsson.com>> Date: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 9:09 AM To: "gen-art@ietf.org" mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>> Cc: Wassim Haddad mailto:wassim.had...@ericsson.com>>, "housley-ltans-oids@tools.ietf.

[Gen-art] Gen-ART Review of draft-housley-ltans-oids-01

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at Document: draft-housley-ltans-oids-01 Reviewer: Wassim Haddad Review Date: 13 August 2013 IETF LC End Date: 31 July 2013 IETF Telechat Date

Re: [Gen-art] [apps-discuss] Gen-ART review of draft-bormann-cbor-04

Hi Carsten, I wasn't really looking for a defense of the design in the form you just provided, cogent as it was. I want to know what value you get from these extensibility features, not a reiteration (and expansion) of the characteristics of those features. My operating assumption was that JSON

Re: [Gen-art] [apps-discuss] Gen-ART review of draft-bormann-cbor-04

On 8/12/13 2:37 PM, "Carsten Bormann" wrote: >If section 3.6 stays, the numerics need more work. +/- Infinity >should be >treated like NaN. > >(Why?) Having more than one way to encode +/- Infinity seems like a recipe for generating slightly different canonical output. For exam

Re: [Gen-art] [apps-discuss] Gen-ART review of draft-bormann-cbor-04

On Aug 5, 2013, at 19:43, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote: > Sorry, my response is also correspondingly long. There are some original > comments at the end [...] We have worked a bit on the detail remarks of your review. (The previous message addressed the grander aspects). Item-by-item repli

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-04

> -Original Message- > From: barryle...@gmail.com [mailto:barryle...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of > Barry Leiba > Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 2:45 PM > To: Jari Arkko > Cc: Moriarty, Kathleen; nk...@cnnic.cn; gen-art@ietf.org; draft-ietf- > weirds-rdap-sec@tools.ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; Ho

Re: [Gen-art] [apps-discuss] Gen-ART review of draft-bormann-cbor-04

On Aug 5, 2013, at 19:43, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote: > Sorry, my response is also correspondingly long. The present message wraps up the more general comments sent by Joe Hildebrand concerning CBOR. Lots of juicy comments. Thanks to all! For these, we are not using the line-by-line st

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-04

> (Barry and Pete may still track the down ref issue, if there's something not > completely resolved yet.) No, nothing left to do: the references in question all have become or are becoming informative. Barry ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org ht

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-manet-rfc6622-bis-04

Russ: Thank you very much for your review and re-review. I have placed a no-objection ballot for this draft for the upcoming IESG telechat. Jari On Aug 9, 2013, at 1:09 AM, Russ Housley wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-sec-04

Kathleen: Thank you for your review - these are very important for me. I have placed a no-objection ballot for this draft. (Barry and Pete may still track the down ref issue, if there's something not completely resolved yet.) Jari On Aug 9, 2013, at 11:53 PM, "Moriarty, Kathleen" wrote: > I

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes-05

Hi Jari, I have seen the comments and I have no objection to incorporating the suggested edits. I have avoided doing that to date, following the advice to wait for the responsible AD before submitting any new versions. Joe On 2013-08-12, at 13:15, Jari Arkko wrote: > Peter: Thank you very

Re: [Gen-art] review: draft-ietf-weirds-using-http-07

Joel: Thank you for your review! I have placed a no-objection ballot for this draft. Jari On Jul 19, 2013, at 7:17 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > >

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes-05

Peter: Thank you very much for your (re)review. Authors, have you seen the comments? For what it is worth, I have placed a no-objection ballot for this draft. (Largely based on this review, because I'm on vacation and have less time to do my own review, which I would normally do at least briefl

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-mpls-retire-ach-tlv-03

Pete: Thank you very much for your review. For your information, I have placed a no-objection ballot for this draft. jari On Jul 31, 2013, at 11:58 PM, Pete McCann wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > >

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-trill-directory-framework-06

David: Thank you. I have placed a no-objection ballot for this draft. Jari On Jul 29, 2013, at 2:20 PM, "Black, David" wrote: > The -06 version of this draft resolves all of the concerns raised by the > Gen-ART > review of the -05 version - the -06 version is ready for publication as an > Info

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-merkle-tls-brainpool-02

Roni, Johannes - thank you. These reviews are important for me to form an opinion, and it is good to see that the comments were addressed. I have placed a no-objection ballot for this draft. Jari On Jul 2, 2013, at 3:23 PM, Johannes Merkle wrote: > a new version addressing your review is on i

Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-emu-crypto-bind-04.txt

Thanks again for your review, Francis. These really are very helpful. I have balloted No-Objection on this document. But authors, have you seen the comments, and have you taken them into account? Jari On Jul 26, 2013, at 4:25 PM, Francis Dupont wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for

Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-dod-08.txt

Francis: thank you for your detailed review! Based on this review I have decided to ballot a No-Objection position. Authors: However, there are some editorial issues that Francis raises here, and I can not find an e-mail where you would respond to them? Has there been a response and/or have th