Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric-05

On 10/08/2016 14:09, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > Hi Brian, > I believe we got a warning from xml2rfc when we didn’t use the pre-2008 > disclaimer (since the draft “updates” RFC 2328). That's correct, it generates such a warning, but it's more in the form of a question ("do you need this?" not

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric-05

Hi Brian, I believe we got a warning from xml2rfc when we didn’t use the pre-2008 disclaimer (since the draft “updates” RFC 2328). Thanks, Acee On 8/8/16, 6:32 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" wrote: >Hi, > >That's all good. With the clarifcations, I think the "Updates" is

[Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery-08

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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. For more information, please see the FAQ at

[Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-bess-ir-04

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

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-clue-datachannel-13

Thanks! Of course, if asked to re-review this for the telechat, the review will just say "Ready". Regards Brian On 10/08/2016 07:05, Christer Holmberg wrote: > Submitted. > > Regards, > > Christer > > -Original Message- > From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:ali...@cooperw.in] > Sent: 09

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-clue-datachannel-13

Submitted. Regards, Christer -Original Message- From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:ali...@cooperw.in] Sent: 09 August 2016 21:53 To: Christer Holmberg Cc: Brian E Carpenter ; draft-ietf-clue-datachannel@ietf.org; General Area

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-radext-datatypes-04.txt

Hi Alan, Thanks for the quick response. The planned edits seem to address all the issues that I raised. There are good chances that I will just say 'I am happy' when I will see the revised I-D. Regards, Dan From: Gen-art [gen-art-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility-03

From: Pete Resnick [mailto:presn...@qti.qualcomm.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2016 9:36 PM To: Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) Cc: General Area Review Team ; draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility@ietf.org; t...@ietf.org; IETF Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-radext-datatypes-04.txt

On Aug 9, 2016, at 5:28 PM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > 1. Although the document makes the claim that it does not impact > previous specifications and implementations, I am not sure this is completely > the case. As noted in the document, implementations have

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility-03

Thanks for the response Tiru. Trimming down to the one open issue below; everything else looks perfect: On 8 Aug 2016, at 23:50, Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) wrote: 3.1.2 - Change "MUST" to "will" both times in the second paragraph. I presume you're OK with those changes? The last sentence

Re: [Gen-art] [manet] Combined Gen-art and secdir LC review: draft-ietf-manet-smc-sec-threats-05

Hello Robert, all, Thank you for this review. Much appreciated. As I understand it, there are no major issues to address? If it is alright with you (& with our AD), We propose to fold the "nits" (as you call them) that you found in with a couple of "nits" raised by Alvaro already, and with