Thank you Lada.
I had missed the union, reading the introductory material with more
attention.
Glad to hear IANA did an early review.
Yours,
Joel
On 5/17/2021 8:25 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Hi Joel,
thanks for the review, please see my responses below.
Joel Halpern via Datatracker writes:
Thanks Al. I presumed all the ducks were in a row, but thought I should
ask to be certain.
Yours,
Joel
On 11/3/2019 3:14 PM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) wrote:
Hi Joel,
Thanks for your review, please see replies below.
Al
-Original Message-
From: Joel Halpern via Datatracker [mailto:nore.
If we do not have agreement on what the meaning is for the relevant
terms, then either
1) The document should not be an IETF consensus document (which even
Informational publication is)
or
2) The document should be Experimental, indicating explicitly that there
is ambiguity in the terms, and on
I do not consider this a show-stopper (I listed it as a nit /
editorial), but at least the -07 text does not look better in this regard.
In my experience, if this were indeed mathematics, one would talk about
a metric (how one measures) and a distance (the result of applying the
measure. E.g.
Thanks Michael. That sounds like you are covering my concerns quite
effectively.
On the IDevID reference, all I think is needed is to change the IEEE
reference to be normative instead of informative. (Or if Toerless'
suggestion is effective in your view, change the text to say that IDevID
is
Thank you. I apologize for missing the other normative items. With
those, plus the elaboration on the SRMS, the status as PS makes good sense.
Yours,
Joel
On 5/21/18 11:45 AM, Ahmed Bashandy wrote:
Thanks a lot for the review
The document specifies externally visible behavior that must be
.
I leave it to the draft authors to resolve this issue with you.
Les
-----Original Message-
From: Joel Halpern Direct
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 1:16 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Joel Halpern
; gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop@ietf.org;
s
Thanks Les. I wondered if that were the case.
Looking again at the draft, the problem then is that section 4.2 of the
subject draft is not a normative definition of an SRMS. It states the
general functionality, and then provides an example of how it would work
in the given scenario.
If the
I am having trouble reconciling two of your comments.
In you rlast email you said that this is for "planed communities
represent the groups of customers peers an geographical and topological
related information". Planned communities is presumably a new behavior,
not existing behavior.
In thi
I guess it is up to you. Personally, I like the idea of the verify
description including some reference to how one actually does verify.
I will leave it to the authors and WG to decide what degree of clarity
is called for here.
Yours,
Joel
On 2/23/18 9:30 AM, Göran Selander wrote:
Hi Joel,
Thanbks Sean. On the first point, using "latter" will fix the problem
nicely.
On the point about CA conflicts, I understand the desire to stay out of
the swamp. Given that calls are frequently international, I am unclear
how National Numbering Authorities can address the issue of
inappropri
Thank you for the reply. Comments in line.
Yours,
Joel
On 10/30/15 4:46 AM, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
Hi Joel,
Thanks for a review. See inline...
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 2:42 AM, Joel M. Halpern mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com>> wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General
Then it will be done. I will wait for the AD to decide what other
changes are needed, and then will either make this change or include it
in an RFC Editor note.
Thank you,
Joel
On 3/27/2013 12:42 PM, Black, David wrote:
That would do nicely.
Thanks,
--David
-Original Message-
Fro
13 matches
Mail list logo
