Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-13.txt

Hi Samer, Thank you for your response and for addressing my comments. I am fine with the proposed solutions. At this point in the process the change control of the document is with the shepherding AD, so please wait for his instructions about when to update the document. Regards, Dan > ---

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat Call review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-synchronization-08

Thanks for your review! On Feb 20, 2014, at 12:04 AM, Meral Shirazipour 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 wait for direction from your docum

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-bytes-discarded-metric-01

Thanks for the review, Vijay! For what it is worth, I agree with you on it being desirable to document the reason for that sentence, and agree that other documents are not necessarily sufficient to explain the situation. Jari On Jan 31, 2014, at 3:45 PM, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote: > On 01/31/201

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-stir-problem-statement-03.txt

Thanks for your review ;-) On Feb 17, 2014, at 1:20 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > 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

Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-housley-pkix-test-oids-00.txt

Thanks for the review again, Francis! Russ, did you noise the typo? Jari On Feb 3, 2014, at 3:48 PM, Francis Dupont wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > > . > >

Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-l3vpn-mldp-vrf-in-band-signaling-03.txt

Hi Francis, I'll resolve the editorial nits. Regarding the co-author list, you say (soft) limit, what does (soft) mean here? Does one co-author need to drop of, or will it pass? Thx, Ice. On 17 Feb 2014, at 16:12, Francis Dupont wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. Fo

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience-09

Thanks for the review, Elwyn. Joel, Fred, authors, any comments on this? Jari On Jan 29, 2014, at 12:25 AM, Elwyn Davies 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 LC review of draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience-09

Elwyn: Nice review. I'm sure the document will be improved because of your efforts. I'd like to make two comments. > s3.1.3: It is stated that placing the NAT64 (middlebox) in a centralized > location would 'reduce the diversity of log format'. I guess what is > possibly being said that is

[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-abfab-arch-12

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-abfab-arch-12 Reviewer: Vijay

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-abfab-arch-12

Thanks for your review, Vijay! Jari On Feb 20, 2014, at 4:38 PM, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote: > 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

Re: [Gen-art] review: draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-rmpr-optimization-00

Thank you for your review, Joel. jari On Jan 24, 2014, at 4:14 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > > . > > Please resolve these comments al

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-olsrv2-tlv-extension-01.txt

Thanks for your review, Brian. Jari On Feb 4, 2014, at 1:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > 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

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience-09

FWIW, I have now done my own review. I think there are language issues, but they do not prevent going forward. Language itself will be fixed by the RFC Editor. I'm more interested in cases where there might be an semantics unclarity issue. I think it would be beneficial to go through each of t

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience-09

I appreciate the review. I disagree that it needs a complete rewrite, but I agree that language work would be beneficial. I do believe that the RFC Editor will have an unusual level of changes, due to language issues. On Feb 21, 2014, at 3:12 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: > Thanks for the review, Elwy

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience-09

On 21/02/2014 05:56, Jari Arkko wrote: ... >> The experiences of some >>applications are still align with [ >> RFC6586]. > > > Not sure what this means. I assume it's a polite way of saying "As expected, a bunch of applications don't work properly." Actually I don't think it's a service to

Re: [Gen-art] [mpls] Review: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-multi-topology-09.txt

Dear Joel, Thank you for your comments. We have updated the MPLS LDP MT draft and have clarified the Multi-Topology Identifiers, figure 10 shows the initial MT-ID registry values: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-multi-topology-11#section-9 We have also defined (and documented i

[Gen-art] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 2014-02-20

Hi all, The following reviewers have assignments: Reviewer LC end Draft - Martin Thomson2014-03-14 draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-13 Meral Shirazipour 2014-02-28 draft-ietf-ecrit-trustworthy-location-08

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience-09

On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 09:46 -0500, Russ Housley wrote: > Elwyn: > > Nice review. I'm sure the document will be improved because of your > efforts. :-) I'd like to make two comments. > > > s3.1.3: It is stated that placing the NAT64 (middlebox) in a > centralized location would 'reduce the div