Thanks for your review, Francis, and for your edits, Kathleen.
Do you Kathleen or Sean think that Francis' comment on strengthening the
security considerations would be something that you should address?
jari
On Jan 13, 2014, at 6:02 PM, Moriarty, Kathleen kathleen.moria...@emc.com
wrote:
Hi Jari,
Since this document is meant to transfer change control to the IETF, RSA would
prefer to leave the document in-tact to match their published version as much
as possible. There is IETF interest in starting a draft as soon as this is
published to correct the well-known issues. We
Many thanks for your (once again) detailed review, Peter! And thank you Curtis
for making the fixes. One comment below:
Make all references to the expansion of ECMP read Equal-Cost Multipath for
consistency with RFC 2991.
ECMP is expanded on first use in compliance with RFC Editor
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-shore-icmp-aup-09
Reviewer: Vijay
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-l2vpn-evpn-req-06
Reviewer:
Ben: thanks for your review re-review.
Jari
On Dec 24, 2013, at 4:31 AM, Ben Campbell b...@nostrum.com 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/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please resolve
Thanks for your review, Alexey! And thank you Donald for considering the
comments. I have placed a no-obj position on the ballot for this Thursday's
IESG telechat. But I do think Alexey raised valid points and I expect the draft
to be revised. Will you take care of that, Donald?
Jari
On Jan
Thanks for your review re-review, David! I have balloted no-obj, for this
Thursday's IESG telechat.
Jari
On Jan 17, 2014, at 1:30 AM, Black, David david.bl...@emc.com wrote:
The -12 version of this draft addresses the nits and editorial items
noted in the Gen-ART review of the -11 version.
In message e736f946-88d0-4262-b2dd-c62fc461a...@piuha.net
Jari Arkko writes:
Many thanks for your (once again) detailed review, Peter! And thank
you Curtis for making the fixes. One comment below:
Make all references to the expansion of ECMP read Equal-Cost Multipath
for
Thanks for your review, Robert. These reviews are important for helping me to
determine whether a document needs further review or if there are issues that
I'd need to pay special attention to. I have balloted no-obj for this document
on the upcoming IESG telechat.
Jari
On Jan 16, 2014, at
Thank you for the review and re-review, and for the changes that occurred in
between. I have balloted no-obj…
Jari
On Jan 21, 2014, at 6:41 PM, Vijay K. Gurbani v...@bell-labs.com wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
Thanks for your review and re-review, Vijay. And thanks for the authors for the
changes that occurred between the two reviews.
I do agree with Vijay's point about R13 and R14.
Jari
On Jan 21, 2014, at 6:32 PM, Vijay K. Gurbani v...@bell-labs.com wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for
Sam: I believe that all you ask is still there. We will consider PM at
architecture time, and anyone can contribute. We'll take it seriously.
What's missing is the requirement to demonstrate that you have covered all
the issues, to an unknown level. Essentially this is how we work already.
On 1/21/2014 1:38 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
I think that consideration of perpass at the architectural level, being
prepared to justify decisions, and seeking adequate review of those
decision
...
I value integrity and honesty very highly and am feel sick when I think
about claiming to the world
Thanks for your detailed review, Martin!
And thank you Victor for a very useful document!
Much of the discussion in this thread is important but also partly editorial.
I'll leave it to sort out between yourselves.
However, I do think Section 6 last sentence:
Should a provide choose to use
Hi Jari,
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
Thanks for your review, Alexey! And thank you Donald for considering the
comments. I have placed a no-obj position on the ballot for this Thursday's
IESG telechat. But I do think Alexey raised valid points and I
On Jan 22, 2014, at 1:21 AM, Donald Eastlake d3e...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Jari,
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
Thanks for your review, Alexey! And thank you Donald for considering the
comments. I have placed a no-obj position on the ballot for this
Jari/Martin,
With respect to section 6, I agree we can remove the odd text and I will
follow Martin's suggestion. The inclusion of that text was a bit
historical as the document was actual first drafted before RFC6598.
I would agree that (as this point) that text, as I have in the document,
18 matches
Mail list logo
