Meral,
Thanks for your review! I've fixed that typo in the next revision.
Cheers,
Andy
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 2:02 PM Meral Shirazipour <
meral.shirazip...@ericsson.com> wrote:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review
> Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF docum
As a WG participant, I would like to add that the use cases are the major
input that the WG used to produce the Architecture and other documents, so
if people read them and don't find the text there sufficient to determine
"why" a particular decision was made, then reading the use cases would be
va
iew. Andy, thanks for your response; hopefully
> it means Brian’s comments will be addressed? I have entered a No Objection
> ballot.
>
> Alissa
>
> On Jun 12, 2018, at 1:50 PM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
>
> Brian,
>
> Thanks, your comments are much appreciated.
>
> Ch
Brian,
Thanks, your comments are much appreciated.
Cheers,
Andy
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:30 PM, Brian Carpenter <
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06
>
> I am the assig
Russ,
This isn’t normal practice, but based on your comment, the IPR declaration
has been reissued explicitly for the WG draft.
Cheers,
Andy
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Stewart Bryant
wrote:
> Hi Russ
>
> Thank you for the review.
>
> I would like to respond to one point:
>
>
> Notes:
>>
Jari,
Yes, Deborah will do the approval as revised draft needed, and comments
from Suresh and others will then be addressed.
Cheers,
Andy
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 5:19 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> Thanks for your in-depth review, Dale! Andy, I assume possible edits are
> on their way in a new versi
Dale,
Thanks for your review!
Cheers,
Andy
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 11:27 AM, IETF Secretariat <
ietf-secretariat-re...@ietf.org> wrote:
> Reviewer: Dale Worley
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) review
Correcting the typo in the gen-art email address.
Cheers,
Andy
On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <
cpign...@cisco.com> wrote:
> Many thanks for your review, Francis.
>
> All editorials fixed in my working copy. I left “encased” in since that
> term is used in RFC 5885 a
Himansu,
Looks great to me, thanks.
Ralph and Alia,
Please review the updates.
Thanks,
Andy
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Shah, Himanshu wrote:
> *Ok, I updated the section. Please review.*
>
>
>
> *Thanks,*
>
> *Himanshu*
>
>
>
> *From:* Andrew G. Malis [
original text
> with
> Steve Bryant's offered text (which you stated you were OK with). Please
> review,
> verify and accept by removing "DISCUSS" on this draft review.
>
> Thanks,
> Himanshu
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Shah, Himanshu
> Se
Himanshu,
Ralph said:
Himanshu - I've received your revised draft. I've been stuck in a variety
of meetings Monday and haven't had time to review it. I should be able to
look at it before the end of the day.
- Ralph
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Shah, Himanshu wrote:
> *Can you send the
Jari,
(I removed some of the the cc:s for this reply).
Thanks, that’s exactly the case, the IPR was announced in November 2012,
prior to the PWE3 WG adoption poll.
I think you just uncovered a tools page bug. Looking at the datatracker,
the replaced-by information is correct through the draft’s
Robert,
Thanks for your review of the draft.
As PALS WG co-chair, I would like to address one point in your review:
There is a process issue that the IESG should pay attention to. The
> shepherd writeup says this: "There is one IPR declaration (1911) raised in
> November 2012 against an early ve
;
>
> Kind regards,
>
> -Peter
>
>
>
> *From:* Andrew G. Malis [mailto:agma...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, October 16, 2015 1:55 AM
> *To:* Peter Yee
> *Cc:* draft-ietf-pals-ms-pw-protection@ietf.org; General Area Review
Peter,
Many thanks for your review. My response is inline:
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 4:07 AM, Peter Yee 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 wait for
eŠ
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> Please let us know when we can go ahead an update the draft to address the
> review comments.
>
>
> Regards,
> Samer
>
> On 2014-02-19 6:31 AM, "Andrew G. Malis" wrote:
>
>>Dan,
>>
>>Thanks for the review (twi
Dan,
Thanks for the review (twice!).
Authors,
Could you please respond to Dan's review and comments?
Thanks,
Andy
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:23 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
wrote:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <
> http://wi
Christer,
Thanks for the update!
Cheers,
Andy
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 4:26 AM, Christer Holmberg
wrote:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
> please see the FAQ at <
> http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Please wait for dire
Meral,
Thanks for the review!
Greg,
It looks like most, but not all, of these comments were already caught
in -04. This is really up to Stewart, but IMHO, the remaining comments
can go in instructions to the RFC Editor, or wait for a revision
triggered by further IESG or IETF-wide review.
Cheer
Stewart,
I guess following precedent is the path of least resistance.
Cheers,
Andy
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> Andrew G. Malis wrote:
>>
>> While I completely agree with Matthew's edits, do informative RFCs
>> normally have normative refer
While I completely agree with Matthew's edits, do informative RFCs
normally have normative references? None of the text is normative
Cheers,
Andy
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 10:40 AM, BOCCI
Matthew wrote:
> Scott,
>
> Many thanks for your review.
>
>> -Original Message-
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>
Spencer,
Works for me. Generally, is there another spin of a draft following a
gen-art review, or can the changed be handled by instructions to the RFC
editor?
Jerry, if you're going to do another rev, my new contact information is:
Andrew G. Malis
Verizon Communications
40 Sylvan Road
Wa
Spencer,
Thanks for your review. Please note that I'm no longer at Tellabs - Jerry,
we can put in my new contact info in a note to the RFC Editor, assuming we
don't need to do another rev. If we do, we can put in my new contact info
there.
As the primary editor, I'll let Jerry speak to the nits
23 matches
Mail list logo
