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 treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more i
Robert,
To save time, let me response to a few of the questions you
raise. (Peter, feel free to plagiarize.)
--On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 11:35 -0700 Robert Sparks
wrote:
> Reviewer: Robert Sparks
> Review result: Ready with Issues
>...
> Document: draft-hakala-urn-nbn-rfc3188bis-00
> Reviewer
On 5/1/18 12:35 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
> Reviewer: Robert Sparks
> 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 treat these com
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
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 treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For mo
Sorry for not seeing your earlier response (and for not spotting the
change in the diff correctly).
Yes, this change is sufficient to address my comments.
RjS
On 5/1/18 11:15 AM, Huangyihong (Rachel) wrote:
Hi Robert,
I believe I have responded you in February, if you check the mail archi
Hi Robert,
I believe I have responded you in February, if you check the mail archive of
xrblock.
Follows was my response before. And I uploaded a new version to reflect that
since I didn't get your further email. Sorry for assuming that you received my
response.
"
Hi Robert,
Thanks
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a n
Brian,
>>> 4. Section 4 - It would be good to capitalize Standards Action, and refer to
>>> RFC 8126 as reference (also to be added)
>>
>> Capitalisation done.
>> I ended up leaning towards not referencing 8126. As most documents with IANA
>> considerations don't. To be consistent.
>
> Really?
