Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-tcpm-dctcp-07

Hi, I missed your comments when I posted -08 - sorry! Will post -09 with fixes shortly. Thanks, Lars signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04

Hi, On 2017-2-11, at 7:42, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > How does this work for UDP? See draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis (which is in AUTH48), Section 3.2 "Message Size Guidelines". Lars signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP ___ Gen-art mai

Re: [Gen-art] Telechat review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-18

Hi, thanks for the review! On 2016-10-11, at 21:21, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > (1) NIT: "RTT" is used without definition. (There used to be a definition but > it has been removed.) I think this can be addressed by an RFC Editor Note. > (2) NIT: unlinked references > > I found a number of cases wh

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis

Hi, thanks for the review! I'll incorporate respective changes into -14. On 2016-05-28, at 20:23, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > After diffing this document against RFC5405 I see that it really is an > incremental change that leaves the scope largely unchanged except for the > addition of multicast. So

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-07

On Jul 3, 2012, at 14:24, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > I found it is to be odd to have a requirements document as a BCP, but I am > sure > you can sort the right status out with IESG. +1 I fail to see why Informational wouldn't be the better status. Lars smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic