Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition-04

Pete, Thank you for your review and comments. I'll be happy to incorporate all the changes you've suggested. I've been a bit swamped. What is a reasonable turnaround time for these? OK if I get this done within the next week or two? When I am done making the changes, should I upload a version

Re: [Gen-art] What is the criterion for major issue?

Hi Brian, I like your clarification Roni > -Original Message- > From: Gen-art [mailto:gen-art-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E > Carpenter > Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 10:40 PM > To: Paul Kyzivat; gen-art@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Gen-art] What is the criterion for major issue?

Re: [Gen-art] What is the criterion for major issue?

On 3/30/16 2:40 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 31/03/2016 02:49, Paul Kyzivat wrote: [Changing the subject line] On 3/29/16 5:31 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: Hi Roni, and gen-art (other cc's dropped) So, a gen-art question to the gen-art reviewers :-) What is the criterion for major issue?

Re: [Gen-art] What is the criterion for major issue?

On 31/03/2016 02:49, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > [Changing the subject line] > > On 3/29/16 5:31 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: >> >> Hi Roni, and gen-art (other cc's dropped) >> >> So, a gen-art question to the gen-art reviewers :-) >> >> What is the criterion for major issue? > > I have also wondered

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tls-chacha20-poly1305-04

> On Mar 30, 2016, at 9:49 AM, Roni Even wrote: > > Hi, > The issue with ARIA was that it was not international standard and as far as > I can see from the references this one is not either. Just giving my opinion here, will let the sec people provide an

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tls-chacha20-poly1305-04

Hi, The issue with ARIA was that it was not international standard and as far as I can see from the references this one is not either. The IETF RFC for it is informational. Roni > -Original Message- > From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:ali...@cooperw.in] > Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tls-chacha20-poly1305-04

> On Mar 30, 2016, at 7:21 AM, Roni Even wrote: > > Hi, > Adding Alissa to the thread > We had a similar issue with draft-ietf-avtcore-aria-srtp . The result was to > downgrade from Standard to Informational. > This required to go back to the WG. I suspect the issue

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tls-chacha20-poly1305-04

Hi, Adding Alissa to the thread We had a similar issue with draft-ietf-avtcore-aria-srtp . The result was to downgrade from Standard to Informational. This required to go back to the WG. I also noted that there is some text in section one that looks like a recommendation which will look

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tls-chacha20-poly1305-04

Fundamentally, no, it is NOT normalized. It is the reviewers judgment of the importance. I try to use a measure that says that if I were an AD, I would think this was blocking before I mark things as Major. But that is just me. And is still a judgment call. And, in case it got lost in the

[Gen-art] What is the criterion for major issue?

[Changing the subject line] On 3/29/16 5:31 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: Hi Roni, and gen-art (other cc's dropped) So, a gen-art question to the gen-art reviewers :-) What is the criterion for major issue? I have also wondered about this. So far I have just been "winging" it, but I continue

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tls-chacha20-poly1305-04

I should have read all my mail before replying. On 3/29/16 5:50 PM, Robert Sparks wrote: On 3/29/16 4:31 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: Hi Roni, and gen-art (other cc's dropped) So, a gen-art question to the gen-art reviewers :-) What is the criterion for major issue? The judgement of the