Hi Al,
Thanks for the explanation, this helped me a lot.
1. It may be useful to insert a paragraph that provides this explanation
2. Makes sense - no change needed.
Regards,
Dan
From: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) [mailto:acmor...@att.com]
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 1:32 AM
To: Roma
Hi Vijay,
Sorry for omitting this one.
It is absolute:
A leecher is a peer that is downloading chunks from other peers, but it does
not have the complete content. And of course, it is uploading while
downloading.
A seeder has complete copies of the content. So it is only uploading.
A leecher c
Hi Dan,
I'll wade-in as Document Shepherd and begin to answer your questions,
Al
1. It is not clear to me how backwards compatibility is ensured. How do
implementations make distinction between OWAMP or TWAMP packets that use
timestamp update and Checksum Complement rather than timestamp updat
Hi Kent,
On 10/22/2015 06:03 PM, Kent Watsen wrote:
> [+barry]
>
> I apologize to reply to myself, but I would be remiss to not mention that
> Barry Leiba had a related COMMENT on the "must immediately start” text. His
> suggestion is to remove the words “MUST immediately” (i.e. Just have
> “
[+barry]
I apologize to reply to myself, but I would be remiss to not mention that Barry
Leiba had a related COMMENT on the "must immediately start” text. His
suggestion is to remove the words “MUST immediately” (i.e. Just have “start”).
As he writes: "What *else* might the client [server] d
Hi Jari, Suresh,
Thank you for your suggestion. How about this, after each of the four uses of
“must immediately start” (in C3, C8, S3, and S6), we add the sentence:
It is unnecessary for the [client/server] to wait
for the remote peer to initiate the first.
Would this be helpful?
Hi all,
The following reviewers have assignments:
Reviewer LC end Draft
-
Robert Sparks 2015-10-30 draft-ietf-isis-route-preference-02
Roni Even 2015-11-02 draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-04
Suresh Kr
Himanshu - I have one clarification to my review: I should have written "Is
there a reason this document does not use RFC 2119 terminology throughout?"
...and even that is likely an unfair assessment, as RFC 2119 language more or
less everywhere needed for clarity.
My apologies for the inaccura
Rachel: Thank you for attending to all my comments.
I did not see the resolution to this one, though:
- S1.1: The taxonomy of a peer into a leecher or a seeder appears to be
absolute. In real swarms (BitTorrent), a peer trades chunks with
other peers, so it is a leecher but also a provid
Thanks - LGTM.
Alia
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>
> On Oct 22, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Pete Resnick
> wrote:
>
> You missed the Zhang reference in 2.2.5. Otherwise fine.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
You missed the Zhang reference in 2.2.5. Otherwise fine.
pr
On 22 Oct 2015, at 11:45, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
See attached. Sorry for the oversight.
On Oct 22, 2015, at 12:09 PM, Pete Resnick
wrote:
All of the changes you made look fine.
You changed the reference to Brisoce, but didn't
All of the changes you made look fine.
You changed the reference to Brisoce, but didn't change McKenny,
Shreedar, or Zhang. I still think you should.
You missed the nit in section 4, paragraph 2 (s/a mark/mark).
There's still no explanation of why this is likely to be a useful
document in th
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team
(Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF
Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
< http://wiki
Aahh! Finally got it with content!!..
Let me go through your email..
Thanks,
Himanshu
-Original Message-
From: Ralph Droms (rdroms) [mailto:rdr...@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 11:29 AM
To: Shah, Himanshu
Cc: A. Jean Mahoney; General Area Review Team;
draft-ietf-pals-mpl
Still no luck. No message content.
Andy Malis – is it possible for you to send Ralph’s email?
Thanks,
Himanshu
From: Ralph Droms (rdroms) [mailto:rdr...@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 11:27 AM
To: Shah, Himanshu
Cc: A. Jean Mahoney; General Area Review Team;
draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp
The archived message in the gen-art list is available here:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg12413.html
> On Oct 22, 2015, at 11:22 AM 10/22/15, Shah, Himanshu wrote:
>
> Can not see your message content.
> PLEASE send without MIME…
>
> Thanks,
> Himanshu
>
> From: Ralp
(originally sent 10/16; second try)
Hi, Himanshu - responses in line...
> On Oct 15, 2015, at 7:44 PM 10/15/15, Shah, Himanshu wrote:
>
> Hi Ralph -
> Thanks for your thorough review.
>
> Let me first address your major concern.
>
> As you point out, this draft builds on existing standards.
>
(originally sent 10/16)
Hi, Himanshu - responses in line...
> On Oct 15, 2015, at 7:44 PM 10/15/15, Shah, Himanshu wrote:
>
> Hi Ralph -
> Thanks for your thorough review.
>
> Let me first address your major concern.
>
> As you point out, this draft builds on existing standards.
> We (authors
Can not see your message content.
PLEASE send without MIME...
Thanks,
Himanshu
From: Ralph Droms (rdroms) [mailto:rdr...@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 11:20 AM
To: Shah, Himanshu
Cc: A. Jean Mahoney; General Area Review Team;
draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-mac-wd@ietf.org; The IESG
Su
Hi Jari,
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> Meral, many thanks for the review. Donald, many thanks for the changes.
>
> I have balloted no-obj.
>
> On re: conflicts, I understood the sentence as a usual if-all-else-fails
> clause of specifying which document has precedence in c
> Yes, the tools servers don't currently follow replaces the same way the
> datatracker does.
> Henrik is aware of it, and is working to make them say the same thing.
Cool, thanks!
Jari
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_
On 10/22/15 5:15 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
But in this case I noticed that
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe/ shows
1 IPR whereas
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02 does
not. But https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dong-pwe3-redundancy-spe-
Thanks for this, Joel. I agree with your suggestion.
Jari
On 16 Oct 2015, at 06:55, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for d
Thanks again Meral for the review.
Jari
On 17 Oct 2015, at 03:38, Meral Shirazipour
wrote:
> Hi,
> Thank you.
>
> Best,
> Meral
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fg...@si6networks.com]
>> Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 3:20 PM
>> To: Meral Shirazipour; draft-iet
Thanks for your review!
On 06 Oct 2015, at 18:00, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review
> Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the
> IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last
Thanks for the review, Pete. Authors, did you have any responses to the points
that Pete is making?
FWIW, I think that the algorithm/queue empty and WRR issues need a fix, and I
also agree with Pete on RFC/author name reference issue,
Jari
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenP
Thanks for the edits & review.
Jari
On 17 Oct 2015, at 20:50, Luigi Iannone wrote:
> Hi Russ,
>
> thanks for the review.
> Inline you can find our propose changes in order to fix the issues.
>
> Let us know if such proposed changes are sufficient.
>
> ciao
>
> Luigi
>
>
>
>> On 14 Oct 20
Thanks for the review and responses.
Jari
On 22 Oct 2015, at 05:03, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> Thanks for addressing my comments quickly. Your proposed changes sound
> good to me.
>
> Cheers
> Suresh
>
> On 10/21/2015 04:38 PM, Gregory Mirsky wrote:
>> Hi Suresh,
>> thank you for t
Thanks for the explanation, Kent, and for the review, Suresh. Can the
explanation be added to the document for other people who might have the same
question.
Jari
On 21 Oct 2015, at 19:37, Kent Watsen wrote:
>
> Hi Suresh,
>
> Thank you for your review.
>
> To answer your question, the ser
Meral, many thanks for the review. Donald, many thanks for the changes.
I have balloted no-obj.
On re: conflicts, I understood the sentence as a usual if-all-else-fails clause
of specifying which document has precedence in case some conflicts are
discovered later. I think that’s fine. Is this y
Thanks again, Meral.
Jari
On 16 Oct 2015, at 00:27, 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 document
Robert, Jimmy,
Thanks for the review & discussion.
From my perspective some of the things that Robert raises are very valid
questions. The particular item that I’m perhaps most interested in is the
text in Section 3.2, which seems like explaining what happens in an example,
but it also uses norma
Jari,
(I removed some of the the cc:s for this reply).
Thanks, that’s exactly the case, the IPR was announced in November 2012,
prior to the PWE3 WG adoption poll.
I think you just uncovered a tools page bug. Looking at the datatracker,
the replaced-by information is correct through the draft’s
Robert:
Many thanks for your detailed review. I will send some technical comments on
this
topic but wanted to answer you and Andrew on the IPR issue separately:
Robert wrote:
> That happens sometimes, but it's much better to have a real indication
> that the group considered the disclosure and
Ralph, many thanks for your in-depth review! And thanks for being on the
Gen-ART team. And than you Himanshu for suggesting ways to deal with the issues.
I agree with Ralph that there are points where this document could be clearer.
The one case that I felt personally strongly about was the part
Thanks for your review, Peter.
Jari
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
Thanks again, Meral.
jari
On 17 Oct 2015, at 00:10, Meral Shirazipour
wrote:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review
> Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the
> IETF Chair.
> Please wait for direction from your docume
Thanks for your review, Joel. And thanks Russ for the added text.
jari
On 27 Aug 2015, at 22:53, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Ple
Hi Vijay,
Thank you for the review. Please see our replies inline starting with [Rachel].
BR,
Rachel
>
> Document: draft-ietf-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol-10
> Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
> Review Date: Oct-15-2015
> IETF LC End Date: Not known
> IESG Telechat date: Oct-15-2015
>
> This document
39 matches
Mail list logo
