Thanks Joel for these helpful comments.
We think these issues could be addressed with a small number of
additional clarifications, see below:
On 15/02/2021 22:46, Joel Halpern via Datatracker wrote:
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review result: Ready with Issues
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer fo
One minor nit on the new text, the term "controlled environment" is used
elsewhere in the RFC series in transport-related documents to describe
what you name "constrained environment".
Gorry
On 19/06/2020 16:02, Mark Allman wrote:
I just posted a new version of rto-consider (-16). The docume
See a few comments (marked GF) from the perspective of other transport
RFCs, in case this helps you find text...
Forwarded Message
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Genart last call review of
draft-ietf-tcpm-rto-consider-14
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 11:00:15 +0100
From: Stewart Bryant
I agree, see below.
On 07/06/2020 18:11, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
On Sat, Jun 06, 2020 at 08:19:52AM +0100, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
Please see below.
On 05/06/2020 17:43, Mark Allman wrote:
=
(3) Each time the RTO is used to detect a loss, the value of the RTO
MUST
Please see below.
On 05/06/2020 17:43, Mark Allman wrote:
Hi Stewart!
Thanks for the feedback. Sorry for the long RTT. I had a recent
deadline and am now trying to dig out.
Major issues:
As far as I can see this text only applies to exchanges between
applications and network support applic
Thanks for your review! We will act on this and another detailed review
of NiTs, and expect to make a new revision in a few days.
Sorry for adding to your pain - being careful to work as an early pilot
for the new document format has probably left us continuing with more
NiTs than we should ha
I commented at the WG meeting, and would like to add a few comments here:
On 07/02/2019 13:27, Zaheduzzaman Sarker wrote:
Hi Stewart,
Thanks for a good review.
For the security consideration section, we can use stronger words if that is
required. This document merely specifies test cases when
Thanks Russ - I believe we will deal with all these in the next revision,
Gorry
On 17/08/2018, 19:17, Russ Housley wrote:
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review result: Ready
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being proce
+1, as Chair. I see we have caused a little confusion here - The WG will
not repeat this list of changes again as a part of the new .bis document.
There could always be potentially be further changes as the .bis
document passes through the WG - of course - but we'd rather expect this
spec is m
Hi
On 04/06/2018 11:13, Christer Holmberg wrote:
Hi Gorry,
...
The information in this document does not update RFC4640 or the Errata
to that specification. The document is instead provided as input to
preparation of a new document that is expected to be a standards-track
replacement for RFC
Hi Christer,
As document shepherd for this SCTP process, I'll have a first go at
responding. I think that for RFC4960 the Errata as filed still apply.
See below. The document authors can of course also propose answers to
these questions
Gorry
On 04/06/2018 10:17, Christer Holmberg wrot
Miguel A. Garcia wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version
12 matches
Mail list logo
