[Gen-art] Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo-12

Hi Gyan, > Major issues: > > I don’t see affiliated or unaffiliated BFD defined in RFC 5880. I recommend > correlation of the concept with a section and verbiage in RFC 5880. I wondered about this a bit when I did a RTGDir review. In the end, I decided that Section 1 had this covered as follows:

[Gen-art] Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-07

Thanks, Peter!   We'll buffer those changes.   Cheers,  Adrian  On 10/08/2024 06:26 BST Peter Yee via Datatracker wrote:     Reviewer: Peter Yee Revie

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices-21

Thanks Reese, Thanks for taking the time to read and comment. All comments accepted and addressed except... > Please consider redrawing the figures using SVG instead of ASCII. > Especially Figure 4 would greatly benefit from this enhancement. I think Figure is about as complex as they get, and

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-teas-rfc3272bis-24

Thanks Behcet.   The "n.d." is an artefact of xml2rfc. I'll leave that for the RFC Editor to worry about.   We could add an abreviations section if anyone feels strongly (I don't, and I'm not looking for extra work :-)   Cheers

Re: [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-10

Hi Gyan, Thanks for the work. > Attached is a txt version -gsm update of version 10 No attachment received. Best, Adrian ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-04

Thanks Elwyn, > The document is fine except that I think it would be appropriate to > give a brief explanation of the reason for the change Ah, yes, erm 😊 I understand why you're interested. Of course, we don't normally explain why IANA policies are selected. There's been a fair amount of deb

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec-09

Thanks for taking time to so the review, Roni. Best, Adrian -Original Message- From: Roni Even via Datatracker Sent: 03 July 2020 08:08 To: gen-art@ietf.org Cc: p...@ietf.org; last-c...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec@ietf.org Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pce

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane-12

Hi Brian, Thanks for your time with this. In line... > Comments: > - > > I am not a BGP expert and did not check the BGP details. This > is a pretty complex mechanism so I would have liked to hear of > at least a lab-scale implementation. I wouldn't be shocked if > this was diverted to E

Re: [Gen-art] [Pce] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10

Hi, Thanks, Dan, for your response here. Just to follow up on one point: >> 2. In section 3.2.1 or section 4.1 if the originator sends PCC or PCE >> sends an open with P flag =0 can the response open be sent with a >> P flag =1 and if yes what should be the action of the originator. I >> did no

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-12

Thanks David, Subject experts we have. Your review of readability etc. was most welcome. Adrian -Original Message- From: David Schinazi via Datatracker Sent: 12 March 2019 22:20 To: gen-art@ietf.org Cc: p...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp@ietf.org Subject

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-02

Hey Robert, Some detailed responses. The revision will be posted when the authors have signed off. Regards, Adrian > The 2nd sentence of the introduction is complex. It should > be easy to simplify. Done > It would help to place the reference to draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy > label at "If e

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-02

That's a good review, Robert, thank you. The changes look achievable to me, and I'm sure the author team can work to include them. Cheers, Adrian -- Want to buy a signed copy of a book of fairy stories for adults of all ages? Send me an email and I'll bring one to Prague for you. "Tales from the

Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-l2sm-l2vpn-service-model-08

Thanks Joel, There's a lot to digest here. The chairs will work with the authors on a response. Adrian > -Original Message- > From: Joel Halpern [mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com] > Sent: 25 February 2018 01:00 > To: gen-art@ietf.org > Cc: l...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; > draft-ietf-l2sm-l2v

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-farrel-sfc-convent-05

Thanks for the time, Robert. Adrian > -Original Message- > From: ietf [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert Sparks > Sent: 26 January 2018 20:14 > To: gen-art@ietf.org > Cc: draft-farrel-sfc-convent@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; s...@ietf.org > Subject: Genart last call review

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-07

Top-posting 'cos I'm lazy. We need to be careful to not confuse two aspects of security in this model. One is security in the use of the model: who can read and write to the operator, whether the data is protected in transit, etc. The other is security within the VPN that is modelled: how sites s

Re: [Gen-art] [OPSAWG] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-service-model-explained-03

Thanks Robert, > I don't have text to suggest, but please look at the first bullet of section 5. > The explanation here was less helpful than the other bullets. Demonstrating the > confusion due to the reuse of the word "service" doesn't help clarify the > confusion. I wonder if there's more conve

Re: [Gen-art] [Teas] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-teas-pce-central-control-04

nd changes look helpful. Best wshes, Elwyn Sent from Samsung tablet. Original message ---- From: Adrian Farrel Date: 04/09/2017 10:47 (GMT+00:00) To: 'Elwyn Davies' , gen-art@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-teas-pce-central-control@ietf.org, i...@ietf.org, t...@ietf.org

Re: [Gen-art] [Teas] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-teas-pce-central-control-04

Thanks Elwyn, Clarified in the next revision. Adrian > -Original Message- > From: Teas [mailto:teas-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Elwyn Davies > Sent: 28 August 2017 20:24 > To: gen-art@ietf.org > Cc: draft-ietf-teas-pce-central-control@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; t...@ietf.org > Subje

Re: [Gen-art] [Teas] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-teas-pce-central-control-03

Elwyn, Thanks for the review. > Summary: > Almost ready. I found this a well-written and mostly readily comprehensible > document although it contains a couple of instances of unexplained SDN/PCE > jargon (notably 'southbound'). My main concern is that the archtecture > suggests that extensions

Re: [Gen-art] [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12

I agree with Hannes on this. However, if the document was to highlight strongly that the data is "a non-routing related capability" (if that's what we believe!) and stress that the information "that does not change frequently" (perhaps with some explanation of "frequently") I believe that might he

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-teas-interconnected-te-info-exchange-05

Hi Brian, Thanks for the time. > Major issues: > - > > > 5. Building on Existing Protocols > > I find it hard to read the introduction to this section and understand > why the draft is proposed for BCP rather than Informational. I will punt this question direct to the responsible

Re: [Gen-art] review: draft-sheffer-rfc6982bis-00

Hi Joel, Thanks for your time. > The introduction describes RFC1264 as requiring at least one > implementation. The general requirement in RFC 1264 is multiple > implementations, at least two independent. While it is a minor issue, > this document should characterize RFC 1264 more carefull

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext-03

his point. Cheers, Adrian -- Read my latest... Tales from the Wood - Eighteen new fairy tales http://www.feedaread.com/books/Tales-from-the-Wood-9781786100924.aspx http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tales-Wood-Adrian-Farrel/dp/1786100924 Or buy from me direct. ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-04

Hi Daniele, > Thanks for the careful review and your comments. > I pretty much agree with Adrian's reply but I think explicitly having some > backward compatibility text in the draft could be helpful. > > Adrian, authors, I'd suggest changing section 5 from "Manageability > Considerations" to "Ba

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-04

Hi Robert, Thanks for reading. > Summary: Ready for publication as a Proposed Standard Excellent diagnosis :-) > One thing I'd like to check, and I suspect this pokes at a conversation > that has already happened (as hinted in the acknowledgements section): > > The discussion of managements sy

Re: [Gen-art] [CCAMP] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk-05 - Nits/editorial items

s for the response - this note contains the follow-ups on nits/editorial items. All of these are nits or editorial, and hence I defer to the editors' discretion on what (if anything) to do about them. The two suggestions for text revisions in your response will definitely improve the draft,

Re: [Gen-art] [CCAMP] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk-05

Hello David, Responding as a contributing author who wants to see this work move forward promptly... Many thanks for taking the time to review. > Minor issues: > > [1] 3.2.5 - the last bullet item is not completely clear to me. What > does it mean for two slot compositions to be the same? Is

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-10

Forwarding on behalf of Alexey. From: Alexey Melnikov [mailto:alexey.melni...@isode.com] Sent: 10 May 2015 17:22 To: adr...@olddog.co.uk Subject: Fwd: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution-10 Hi Adrian, I am having some problems with the tools.ietf.org alias expa

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-roll-applicability-home-building-08

Hi Peter, This all looks good. The changes are small, but it would be worth catching them in a new revision. Please post it when you have it, no need to check with me. Once you've done that, we'll hand it over to Alvaro as the incoming AD, and he can put it on an IESG telechat. Cheers, Adrian

Re: [Gen-art] Last Call Review: draft-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-03

@ietf.org; George Swallow; Vanson > Lim; Sam Aldrin; mpls-cha...@ietf.org; Adrian Farrel > Subject: Re: Last Call Review: draft-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-03 > > Thank you for your update (version -04). > > I cannot see any changes in the -04 version responding to my minor >

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat Call review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registry-02

And thanks Meral for the review And thanks Bruno for the response with which I agree. Adrian > -Original Message- > From: Loa Andersson [mailto:l...@pi.nu] > Sent: 05 March 2015 11:09 > To: bruno.decra...@orange.com; draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping- > registry@tools.ietf.org; meral.shirazip.

Re: [Gen-art] Last Call Review of draft-farrresnickel-harassment-05

Tom, Thanks for the review > Nits/editorial comments: > > The Ombudsteam is taken for granted from Section 2 onwards. It would be > nice to mention in the Introduction that the IESG mentioned > Ombudspersons in its statement of anti-harassment policy [1], but did > not define the procedures

Re: [Gen-art] Last Call Review: draft-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-03

Tom, Thanks for the detailed review. Much appreciated. Late is better than not at all, and one day is not the end of the world. > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. Well, we'll handle the comments, of course, but we'll make a special trip to

Re: [Gen-art] review: draft-ietf-roll-admin-local-policy-03 (was -02)

Thanks Joel. Adrian > -Original Message- > From: Joel Halpern [mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com] > Sent: 12 February 2015 23:38 > To: gen-art@ietf.org; maria.ines.rob...@ericsson.com; IETF discussion list > Cc: Adrian Farrel; r...@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Gen-art] revie

Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community-09.txt

Authors, Fortunately Francis has not found any issues of substance. Please fold these nits into the revision you are producing to address the IESG Comments from last Thursday's telechat. Thanks, Adrian > > From: francis.dup...@fdupont.fron Behalf OfFranci

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review for draft-ietf-pce-rfc7150bis-01

Thanks, Peter. Adrian > -Original Message- > From: ietf [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Yee > Sent: 24 December 2014 20:18 > To: draft-ietf-pce-rfc7150bis@tools.ietf.org > Cc: gen-art@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org > Subject: Gen-ART LC review for draft-ietf-pce-rfc7150bis-0

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-te-mib-09

Hi, reading out of context... "Sparse augmentation" is a term of art for MIB modules. It means that the table rows are not augmented 1:1. Only those rows that are wanted to be augmented, are augmented. A From: Elwyn Davies [mailto:elw...@folly.org.uk] Sent: 14 December 2014 19:29 To: Sam Al

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review for draft-ietf-l3vpn-end-system-04

Thanks for the nits, Peter. We'll be sure to look at them if the document is open again before being passed to the RFC editor. Adrian > -Original Message- > From: ietf [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Yee > Sent: 09 December 2014 08:09 > To: draft-ietf-l3vpn-end-system.

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info-22.txt

Thanks Russ, That looks reasonable and tractable. Adrian > -Original Message- > From: ietf [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Russ Housley > Sent: 09 November 2014 22:42 > To: IETF; ccamp-cha...@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa- > info@tools.ietf.org > Cc: General Area R

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-manet-ibs-03

All, This document has completed IETF last call, but it seems to me that this conversation may not be complete yet. Please continue it and try to reach resolution. The document is on the IESG telechat for 11/25 and I am confident that you will reach some agreement (if only agreement to disagree)

Re: [Gen-art] GenART review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-10

> BTW, since these are just editorial changes, I will just give them to the > RFC editor, unless you want me to check the new rev in. Give them the edits and ask whether they'd like a new rev. Thanks, Adrian ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org

Re: [Gen-art] GenART review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-10

Resend with Martin's correct email > -Original Message- > From: iesg [mailto:iesg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: 17 October 2014 12:05 > To: martin.thom...@andrew.com > Cc: draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn@tools.ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org; i...@ie

Re: [Gen-art] GenART review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-10

Hi Martin, I firmly believe that all reviews are good reviews, and thank you for the time you have put into this. You'll understand, of course, the squawking noise made by the authors who received your review the day after the IESG discussed your document on the telechat. In fact, the last Discus

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-forces-model-extension-03

Ben, Thanks for the time and effort. Adrian > -Original Message- > From: ietf [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ben Campbell > Sent: 27 August 2014 22:25 > To: Haleplidis Evangelos > Cc: draft-ietf-forces-model-extension@tools.ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org; > i...@ietf.org > S

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bfd-tc-mib-06

Hi Christer, Thanks for your efforts. > Editorial nits: >  > Section 1 (Introduction): >- >  > Q_1: > > s/”two MIB modules”/”two Management Information Base (MIB) modules” Note that "MIB" is found as "well known" at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bfd-mib-17

Hi David, Thanks for the review. To pick out one of your points: > This MIB contains many writable objects, so the authors should > take note of the IESG statement on writable MIB modules: > > http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/writable-mib-module.html > > I did not see this mentioned in

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-mac-opt-11

Thanks Robert, Will be interested to hear author/shepherd responses to this. Adrian > -Original Message- > From: L2vpn [mailto:l2vpn-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert Sparks > Sent: 07 April 2014 20:41 > To: General Area Review Team; draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-mac-...@tools.ietf.org;

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv-07

Thanks for your time, Roni. Adrian From: ietf [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Roni Even Sent: 03 April 2014 11:48 To: draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv@tools.ietf.org Cc: gen-art@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv-07 I am the

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-07.txt

Hi Brian, > Minor issues: > - > > The document is scoped for MPLS substrates, but I see very little in it that > requires MPLS. Archtecturally, it is quite general. Was there any > consideration of making it applicable to a non-MPLS substrate? > > > 3.4.7. Scalability > > > > The

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art telechat review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-psc-itu-03.txt

Hi Elwyn, > > I understand from the document editor that there is a revision in waiting to be > > posted that clears up some remaining nits from your review. > I haven't seen this as yet, nor the psc-updates new version. PSC-updates just posted (got stuck in a tools snafu). Update to this I-D is

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art telechat review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-psc-itu-03.txt

Hi Elwyn, Thanks for your pursuit of excellence. I understand from the document editor that there is a revision in waiting to be posted that clears up some remaining nits from your review. However, in line... > Summary: > Almost ready. There are a couple of points which I raised at Last Call >

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-mahalingham-dutt-dcops-vxlan-08

Thanks Robert, I also noted some of these process concerns as shepherding AD, but took over the document half way through IETF last call. I am currently in discussion with the authors about the best way forward. Cheers, Adrian From: ietf [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert Spar

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-psc-itu-02.txt

Sut mae, Elwyn-gwas, [snip] > Politics! OK - How about we add to either s9.1.1 or s9.2 something like: I don't think it is politics at all, and I don't really like that Huub referenced this as IETF and ITU-T since both documents are IETF standards track work. There are some people who want to d

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mpls-special-purpose-labels-05

Hi Roni, Thanks for taking the time. > Minor issues: > 1. In section 3.2 (a):  I noticed that the policy to update the registry according >  to section 5 is standard action so it should be the same here since this is an > update to the registry. Hmmm, but I don't think so. Section 5 (and the exi

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-05

Hi Russ, Thanks for the review. > Question: > > Should this document be an update to the MPLS-TP Framework (RFC 5921)? > I am not sure. RFC 5921 does make it clear that it covers only point- > to-point transport paths. The answer may be further complicated by > the fact that RFC 5921 is joint

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk-11

Thanks David, Stored for future updates. Adrian > -Original Message- > From: Black, David [mailto:david.bl...@emc.com] > Sent: 30 December 2013 02:46 > To: General Area Review Team (gen-art@ietf.org); attila.tak...@ericsson.com; > donald.fe...@alcatel-lucent.com; he...@huawei.com > Cc: B

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-isis-rfc1142-to-historic-00

Thanks, I added an RFC editor note. Adrian > From: Mike Shand > Sent: 18 December 2013 14:24:51 (UTC) Dublin, Edinburgh, Lisbon, London > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Romascanu, Dan (Dan); gen-art@ietf.org > Cc: draft-ietf-isis-rfc1142-to-historic@tools.ietf.org > Subject: Re: Gen-ART review

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-14

Hello, You said... > Actually, my problem was that the terminology section talks about LO ODUj while > Section 3 just uses ODUj. Does this mean LO ODUj, HO ODUj, or either one? Can > you clarify? The document has tried to be careful to use ODUj when describing LO and ODUk when talking about HO.

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-14

Thanks Russ! > Minor Concerns: > > In section 3, there is a discussion that includes ODU0, ODU2e, and ODU4, > but these terms are not defined in the paragraph or in the terminology > section. I realize that these are ODUj values, but ODUflex is an ODUj, > and it is included in the terminology se

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext-04

mailto:lber...@labn.net] > Sent: 30 August 2012 15:28 > To: Adrian Farrel > Cc: draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext@tools.ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org > Subject: Fwd: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext-04 > > > > Adrian, > Shout (or change the ID stat

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-04

Got it, thauks. Adriau > -Original Message- > From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thom...@gmail.com] > Sent: 23 August 2012 22:35 > To: draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk@tools.ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org > Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-04 > > I am the assigned Gen

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc5787bis-05

Thanks Roni, Good catches. Adrian From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Roni Even Sent: 13 August 2012 22:07 To: draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc5787bis@tools.ietf.org Cc: gen-art@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc5787bis-05 I am

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-info-03

Thanks Ben. All entered as RFC Editor notes except the last one... > -- 2.2, paragraph 5: "... definition of the Association ID, which is (quoting > [RFC4872]):" > > The quoted text this refers to is more of a description of use than a definition. I agree, but don't think any change is needed.

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-04

All (copying the IESG), I do sincerely welcome all reviews of all I-Ds that I sponsor or where I am the responsible AD. I even mainly welcome them when I am an author. However, when Directorate or Review Team reviews come in so long after the end of IETF Last Call, and especially when they arrive

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03

Thanks Christer, > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background > on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > . >  > Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD > before posting a new version of the draft. >  >

[Gen-art] Hello Russ ? [RE: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-pim-port [Was: Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-pim-port-09.txt]]

Russ, Pingy pingy ping. I've added to the informal agenda for 1/12/12 A > -Original Message- > From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk] > Sent: 03 January 2012 22:08 > To: 'Stig Venaas'; 'Russ Housley' > Cc: 'Suresh Krishnan';

Re: [Gen-art] Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-pim-port [Was: Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-pim-port-09.txt]

In the hope that the change (acceptable to Suresh) will work for Russ, I have entered the RFC Editor note. A > -Original Message- > From: Stig Venaas [mailto:sven...@cisco.com] > Sent: 03 January 2012 17:27 > To: Russ Housley > Cc: Suresh Krishnan; adr...@olddog.co.uk; draft-ietf-pim-port

[Gen-art] Russ's Discs on draft-ietf-pim-port [Was: Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-pim-port-09.txt]

Hi, This thread seems to have dried up. AFAICS there is no change needed to the document. Anything further to say before I ask Russ to clear his Discuss? Thanks, Adrian > -Original Message- > From: Stig Venaas [mailto:s...@venaas.com] > Sent: 08 November 2011 04:02 > To: Suresh Krishnan

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-attribute-bnf-02

r [mailto:lber...@labn.net] > Sent: 18 October 2011 22:56 > To: Vijay K. Gurbani > Cc: draft-ietf-ccamp-attribute-...@tools.ietf.org; dbrung...@att.com; Adrian > Farrel; General Area Review Team > Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-attribute-bnf-02 > > Vijay, > >

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-10

Hi Ben, Thanks for the review. > Minor issues: > > -- Section 7, first paragraph: "During the review of this document, It emerged > that there are different possible interpretations of [RFC5798]. The Authors of > that document and the VRRP working group were unable to reach consensus on > which

Re: [Gen-art] Note Well applicability to bar BOFs

mailto:gen-art-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Peter Saint-Andre > > Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 12:39 PM > > To: adr...@olddog.co.uk > > Cc: draft-eggert-successful-bar-bof@tools.ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org; 'Jorge > Contreras'; 'Scott O. &g

Re: [Gen-art] Note Well applicability to bar BOFs

> > When I talk to my friend in the corridor of an IETF gathering I am not > > covered > > by the IPR rules. When I go to the bar and find I am redesigning IPv6 > > (again) I > > am not covered by the IPR rules. > > Actually, when you as an AD talk to your friend, doesn't Note Well > apply? Unle

Re: [Gen-art] Note Well applicability to bar BOFs

I will strongly oppose the application of Note Well to bar BoFs. Bar BoFs are (IMHO) outside the IETF process and do not constitute any part of it. That we gently encourage people to have meetings in bars, restaurants, hotel bedrooms, or saunas does not make them any more part of the IETF process.

Re: [Gen-art] One sentence, RE: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-08

I added this in an RFC Editor Note. No further action required. A > -Original Message- > From: Ross Callon [mailto:rcal...@juniper.net] > Sent: 18 August 2011 21:20 > To: Zafar Ali (zali); Ben Campbell; draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob- > mapping@tools.ietf.org > Cc: gen-art@ietf.o

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-16

[snippety-snack] > >>3.2.2. Node Address P2MP Responder Identifier Sub-TLVs > >> > >> The address in this Sub-TLV SHOULD be of any transit, branch, bud or > >> egress node for that P2MP LSP. > >> > >>Is the use of SHOULD correct here (instead of a MUST)? Are there any choices > >>left if the S

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-16

Alexey, hello. Thanks for the review. In line. Adrian > Minor issues: > > 1.1. Design Considerations > >As is described in [RFC4379], to avoid potential Denial of Service >attacks, it is RECOMMENDED to regulate the LSP Ping traffic passed to >the control plane. A rate limiter sh

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-shiomoto-ccamp-switch-programming

Hi Ben, Thanks for reading. > Nits/editorial comments: > > -- section 1, paragraph 4: "...with relation to the programming..." > > ... in relation to... Yeah. RFC Editor note if Stewart is watching (although I'm guessing the RFC Editor might just fix this anyway). > -- 3.1, last paragraph: >

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-dsmap-09

LC review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-dsmap-09 > > On 05/24/2011 03:15, Adrian Farrel wrote: > > Thanks Roni, > > > >> > Nits/editorial comments: > >> > > >> > 1. Need to expand LDP when first mentioned. > > LDP is a recognised

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-dsmap-09

Thanks Roni, > Nits/editorial comments: > > 1. Need to expand LDP when first mentioned. LDP is a recognised acronym at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt and does not need to be expanded. Cheers, Adrian ___ Gen-art mailing

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-cp-framework-05

Thanks for the review and these minor points. Russ, I'm going to capture Ben's review in a Comment attached to my Yes ballot, and the authors can come back and pick them up after the IESG review complete. Cheers, Adrian > -Original Message- > From: Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@nostrum.com]

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-pim-registry-03.txt

Thanks Brian, RFC Editor is just polling to add PIM to the list of well-known acronyms. A > -Original Message- > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com] > Sent: 18 January 2011 01:24 > To: draft-ietf-pim-registry@tools.ietf.org; General Area Review Team > Subject

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-roll-security-framework-04

Hi David, Thanks for continuing to discuss. > [A] I remain surprised that the forwarding table in each node is not considered to > be an attack target (i.e., asset to be protected). What did you have in mind? Do you believe someone with a wrench might break into the router and steal the routing

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-pim-group-rp-mapping-07.txt

Hi, IETF last call completed without further comments. Can I suggest OLD When a Group-to-RP mapping entry is created in the pimGroupMappingTable in the PIM-STD MIB[RFC5060], it would be acceptable to have an entry with an RP with address type 'unknown' and a PimMode of Dense Mode or

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-ip-options-05.txt

...@att.com; John Mullooly (jmullool); > tsch...@nlayer.net; George Swallow (swallow); Adrian Farrel; General Area > Review Team > Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-ip-options-05.txt > > > Hi Miguel, > > Many thanks for your review. > > Regarding your

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-06.txt

Thanks David, [snip] The following 3 IANA-related nits still need attention: - In Section 4.1, remove the note to IANA after 2) and instead insert this instruction into Section 7. This is already the first bullet point in Section 7. The RFC Editor will spot "suggested value" in 4.1 and updat

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-05.txt

David, Thanks for this. Authors: please consider these comments as part of the IETF last call, and come to resolution (possibly needing RFC Editor comments or a new revision). Thanks, Adrian - Original Message - From: To: ; ; ; ; Cc: ; ; ; ; ; Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 6

Re: [Gen-art] Gen Art LC review of draft-ietf-pce-manageability-requirements-10

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Will try, but it may be hard to reach resolution on some of them :-) Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: None Many thanks for taking the time to read and review. Adrian __

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-svec-list-04.txt

Thanks Miguel! Minor issues: - I noticed that the draft, although it uses normative verbs, they are all written in lower case. Additionally, there is no dependency to RFC 2119. I guess this is done on purpose because the draft is Informational. Is this the intention? In the past the IETF h

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-extensions-12

elecom.com; 'gen- a...@ietf.org' Cc: Black, David; Lou Berger; Adrian Farrel; cc...@ietf.org Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-extensions-11 I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http

Re: [Gen-art] Next steps with draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-extensions

Ah thanks, I had only checked the datatracker. I guess this will pop out on Monday when the Secretariat get to work. It seems to address the points. Thanks. Adrian - Original Message - From: "Lou Berger" To: "Adrian Farrel" Cc: "PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri&q

[Gen-art] Next steps with draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-extensions

Hi Dimitri, Looking at your response to David Black's review, I think an update to the draft is needed. I'd like to get it onto an IESG agenda before Anaheim as it has several Ethernet drafts backed up behind it. Sections 5.1.4, 5.2.1 and 8 have me confused about the Attributes Flags TLV: -

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-03.txt

Hi Miguel, I think IANA owns the MIB module. You're right, we should chase IANA to make sure they understand what to do. Lou, can you ping them? A - Original Message - From: "Miguel A. Garcia" To: ; ; ; Cc: "General Area Review Team" Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 8:08 AM Subj

Re: [Gen-art] draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-req-04.txt

Thanks Francis, Summary: Ready Good to know. Nits/editorial comments: - in 1 page 2: in theory you should expend the VPN abbrev (it is not in http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt marked as well known even IMHO it should, so the "in theory") Yup - 2.1.4 page 3:

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework-07.txt

Hi Suresh, Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Well, we won't treat these as "any other Last Call comments" as they arrived almost two months after the end of the last call period. However, we do value your review and thank you for your com

Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-roll-building-routing-reqs-07.txt

Thanks Francois, Good to have your review. Coming as it does, after both IETF last call and IESG review, we will try to sort your comments by importance and pass them on as pointers to the RFC Editor. Cheers, Adrian - Original Message - From: "Francis Dupont" To: Cc: ; ; ; ;

Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute-04.txt

Francis, Get a conformant dictionary :-) Compliant has two meanings. The most used would describe a submissive person. Conformant has the same meaning as the other meaning of compliant. Lou, were you proposing that a further change is made here? Can you handle it in Auth48? A - Original

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-requirements

All, I propose the following RFC Editor note... Section 1 OLD Although both static and dynamic configuration of MPLS-TP transport paths (including Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) and protection capabilities) is required by this document, it MUST be possible for operator

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-frwk-10.txt

Thanks Sean, Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication (informational with no RFC 2119 requirements terminology), but has nits that should be fixed before publication. I ran it through ID-nits: - is a pre-5378 disclaimer needed? Will look at this, but I believe not. - draft-iet

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-gach-gal-05.txt

Hi, - Rule of 5 authors. The draft lists 6 authors, of which 2 of them are listed as Editors. While this is not an impediment for its publication, certainly it brakes the RFC Editor's rule of 5 authors. I'm waiting for guidance from Loa and Adrian on this one. I thought I sent this. Documen

Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-te-mib-08.txt (full)

Thanks Francis, I'll catch these with an update after IETF last call completes Adrian - Original Message - From: "Francis Dupont" To: Cc: ; ; ; Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 1:09 PM Subject: review of draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-te-mib-08.txt (full) I have been selected as the General

  1   2   >