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.
Do
Joel,
Thanks, I'd be very happy with your proposed updates.
Regards
Brian
On 08/07/2014 23:01, Joel M Snyder wrote:
> I'll provide this and let Tero decode how to handle in concert with your
> feedback:
>
> Nits:
>
> You could write that sentence about 10 different ways and make it easier
>
On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On 8 July 2014 16:49, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>>
>>
>> An implementor of RFC 6120 does not know that the XMPP over Websockets
>> binding option exists at all. It did not exist by the time 6120 was
>> written, so of cou
Extension specifications, in my opinion, should not Update the base
specification. To those who think they should, consider what that means when
the base specification is an IETF full standard and the extension specification
is an independent submission experimental RFC.
Making base specifica
On 8 July 2014 16:49, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
>
>
> An implementor of RFC 6120 does not know that the XMPP over Websockets
> binding option exists at all. It did not exist by the time 6120 was
> written, so of course, they can do without it. Now that the binding exist,
> the opt
Hi Dave,
An implementor of RFC 6120 does not know that the XMPP over Websockets binding
option exists at all. It did not exist by the time 6120 was written, so of
course, they can do without it. Now that the binding exist, the option should
be visible IMO.
The language you use in the I-D actua
On 8 July 2014 10:06, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> Hi Jari,
>
> The authors actually responded - see
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg10306.html.
>
> They pushed back on my #1 - I am still not convinced by their argument (as
> the protocol does change by adding a differe
Hi Dan,
As the document shepherd for this spec and the author of RFC 6120, I
have one comment below.
On 7/8/14, 3:06 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
Hi Jari,
The authors actually responded - see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg10306.html.
They pushed back on my #1 -
Version 7 addresses all of my concerns, and is IMO ready for publication.
Thanks!
Ben.
On Jul 8, 2014, at 1:14 AM,
wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> A pre-5378 boilerplate is now present in -07. Please check this diff:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-07
Thank you for the review, Christer.
FWIW, I agree with the points that Christer raises. Any thoughts from the
authors?
When I read sections 8.14 and 8.15 they do not give as precise instruction for
the implementer about how to handle keepalives and dead peer detection as I’d
personally like to
I'll provide this and let Tero decode how to handle in concert with your
feedback:
Nits:
You could write that sentence about 10 different ways and make it easier
to read :-) If I were to start from scratch, I would write it as:
- In IKEv2, authentication using RSA digital signatures calls f
> I would like to see some thoughts from the editors regarding the two points
> that you raised.
Hrm, did my earlier response on the 3rd not make it through moderation to the
gen-art list?
> 1. In order to accommodate the Websocket binding this document describes
> several
> deviations from
Robert,
Thanks so much for your comments. Just a quick note that I'm working my
through them and will post a reply in the next couple of days.
-vince
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Robert Sparks wrote:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> Gen-ART, please
Hi Jari,
The authors actually responded - see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg10306.html.
They pushed back on my #1 - I am still not convinced by their argument (as the
protocol does change by adding a different mapping) but I would not block the
document for this purp
On 7/8/14, 12:51 AM, Lance Stout wrote:
I would like to see some thoughts from the editors regarding the two points
that you raised.
Hrm, did my earlier response on the 3rd not make it through moderation to the
gen-art list?
1. In order to accommodate the Websocket binding this document
15 matches
Mail list logo
