Reviewer: Matthew Miller
Review result: Ready with Nits
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 mor
Stewart, thanks for your review. I entered a No Objection ballot.
Alissa
> On Mar 2, 2018, at 3:25 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
> Review result: Ready with Issues
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews a
Thank you Roni and Dino. I have entered a No Objection ballot.
Alissa
> On Feb 26, 2018, at 3:40 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>
>> Nits/editorial comments:
>>
>> 1. in section 1 "The signal-free mechanism here proposed " should be "The
>> signal-free mechanism proposed here " 2. in section 2 SSM
Robert, thanks for your review. Huaimo, thanks for your responses. I think with
the final change agreed between Huaimo and IANA, Section 8 should be good to
go. I entered a No Objection ballot.
Alissa
> On Mar 1, 2018, at 10:43 AM, Robert Sparks wrote:
>
> I'm fine with the way you handled al
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review result: Ready with Issues
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
document shepherd or AD before posting a new
Francis, thanks for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot.
Alissa
> On Mar 5, 2018, at 5:27 PM, Francis Dupont 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
Stewart, thanks for your reviews of this document. Huaimo, thanks for your
responses. I have entered a No Objection ballot.
Alissa
> On Mar 5, 2018, at 4:44 PM, Huaimo Chen wrote:
>
> Hi Steward,
>
>Thank you very much for your time and your valuable comments.
>We have updated the doc
Dan, thanks for your review. Mike et al, thanks for your responses. I
appreciate the novelty of the registration process here but I think the text as
it currently stands is clear enough. I entered a No Objection ballot.
Alissa
> On Mar 5, 2018, at 7:44 PM, Mike Jones wrote:
>
> Dan, you’ll f
+1. If anything, the existing "buggy implementation" alert codes should get
folded together. (But I don't think it's worth making that change at this
stage either.) E.g. decode_error vs illegal_parameter vs
unexpected_message are rather useless distinctions and trying to get them
"right" adds compl
