Hi all,
NOTE: This email contains links to the new review tool
functionality in Datatracker.
The old review tool (art.tools.ietf.org/tools/art/genart/)
is now deprecated, use Datatracker instead.
The following reviewers have assignments:
Reviewer LC end Draft
-
On 01 Dec 2016, at 22:01, Dino Farinacci wrote:
> There is no other text in the email. So can’t be sure what you are saying.
> I’m guessing you are fine with the proposed text?
yes, the one that you proposed
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
__
Thank you, Dino. Good, I understand it now.
Lucy
-Original Message-
From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:farina...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 1:53 PM
To: Lucy yong
Cc: Jari Arkko; draft-ietf-pim-join-attributes-for-l...@tools.ietf.org; General
Area Review Team; Stig Venaas
Sub
There is no other text in the email. So can’t be sure what you are saying. I’m
guessing you are fine with the proposed text?
My co-authors have to agree though. ;-)
Dino
> On Dec 1, 2016, at 11:55 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>
> That would work for me.
>
> Jari
>
___
That would work for me.
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
> OK, forget my suggestion. I have a difficulty to parse this sentence (second
> part)
>
> It determines the downstream destination for unicast head-end replication
> and identifies the
> receiver ETR that needs to be notified should the root of the
> distribution tree move to another site.
>
OK, forget my suggestion. I have a difficulty to parse this sentence (second
part)
It determines the downstream destination for unicast head-end replication and
identifies the
receiver ETR that needs to be notified should the root of the
distribution tree move to another site.
Lucy
-
> Could you make this sentence more readable?
>
> It determines the downstream destination for unicast head-end replication
> and identifies the
> receiver ETR that needs to be notified should the root of the
> distribution tree move to another site.
>
> "should be", "moving”?
I do not u
Hi Dino,
Sorry, I did not have time to study RFC6831 for this review work and may not
interpret the draft properly by reading it. I trust you on the protocol design
and have no objection on Jari's decision.
Could you make this sentence more readable?
It determines the downstream destination
> Lucy,
>
> Many thanks for your review.
>
> Dino, Stig, does this discussion lead you to consider adding some
> clarifications to the document? I am not going to require those (just posted
> a no-obj for the document on today’s telechat), but wanted to give you an
> opportunity to consider th
One thing to note, since the client will never know what the KDC is using size
will not impact the error or AS-REQ processing unless we can declare a
universal min and max. It can be used by the KDC since it will know if nonce,
sym crypto or asym crypto. So the example that Russ provided was cli
Ok, since answer not obvious starting thread on Kitten.
-Original Message-
From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.ar...@piuha.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2016 1:30 AM
To: Benjamin Kaduk
Cc: Paul Miller (NT) ; Michiko Short
; IETF Gen-ART ;
draft-ietf-kitten-pkinit-freshness@ietf.org
S
Hi Ran,
Thanks for addressing all my concerns and congratulations to you and your
colleagues for the good work.
Regards,
Dan
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)
wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> Thanks for your review. Please see inline
>
> From: Dan Romascanu
> Date: Friday, 25 Nove
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review result: Ready
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
Hi Jari,
Yes. I just replied to Dan’s comment. Will take care of all of them. Thanks for
your review.
Regards,
Ram
-Original Message-
From: Jari Arkko
Date: Thursday, 1 December 2016 at 7:08 PM
To: Dan Romascanu
Cc: ,
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-siprec-callflo
Hi Dan,
Thanks for your review. Please see inline
From: Dan Romascanu
Date: Friday, 25 November 2016 at 5:46 PM
To: "gen-art@ietf.org" ,
"draft-ietf-siprec-callflows@tools.ietf.org"
Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-siprec-callflows-07
Resent-From: ,
Resent-To: , ,
, , ,
, , , Andr
Thanks for the review & the edits.
jari
On 24 Nov 2016, at 02:24, Joel Halpern wrote:
> The new version addresses my concerns and is ready for publication as an
> informational RFC.
>
> Yours,
> Joel M. Halpern
>
> On 10/14/16 4:51 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> I am the assigned Gen-ART revi
Thank you very much for your review, Dan. Authors, have you taken a look at
Dan’s comments?
Jari
On 25 Nov 2016, at 14:16, Dan Romascanu 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
Paul: thank you for the review!
Jari
On 28 Nov 2016, at 20:09, 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 a
Thanks for the review and fixes!
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
Lucy,
Many thanks for your review.
Dino, Stig, does this discussion lead you to consider adding some
clarifications to the document? I am not going to require those (just posted a
no-obj for the document on today’s telechat), but wanted to give you an
opportunity to consider that.
Jari
sig
Thanks for the review, Robert.
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 for your reviews on this and other documents, 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 much for your review, Paul!
Do the authors have any comments? Paul’s review comments should be addressed. I
think that at least the Section 5.6 question is something that you must address.
Jari
On 28 Nov 2016, at 19:06, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this
Many thanks for your review, Russ, and for thinking about this space and what
issues there might be.
I too am concerned about the issue that Russ Housley raised: bad practices in
creating the freshness tokens creates a security issue. If this cannot be
handled in the way that Russ initially sug
Thanks for your review, Robert, and thanks everyone for addressing the earlier
comments.
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 for your review, Joel!
Jari
On 31 Oct 2016, at 00:47, 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 treat these comments just
> like
Many thanks for your excellent review, Russ.
I plan to watch the resolution of the Discusses related to the unclear SHOULD
NOT. (It certainly would have been a Discuss from me if a Discuss wasn’t
already raised.)
At this point I do not plan to block on the document class, but looking forward
t
28 matches
Mail list logo
