Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-pause-extension-05

Hi, Thanks you for the comments, please see below. On 3/20/2019 10:33 PM, Dale Worley via Datatracker 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) reviews all IETF documents being processed

Re: [Gen-art] [Detnet] Preliminary Qs for Genart review of draft-ietf-detnet-use-cases

Hi Pete,     It's a reasonable question.  I think the document serves a number of purposes: - It has been the document that has been guiding the scope of the solutions being worked in the WG this is the one that I think you are keying off of. - It also serves a long lived purpose to help t

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-15

Hi Russ,     Thanks for the comments. Please take a look at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-16 and let us know if this version does *not* address your issues. Thanks, Lou (doc Shepherd) On 5/17/2018 4:18 PM, Russ Housley wrote: Reviewer: Russ Housley Review resul

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model-05

Hi,     Sorry about the slow response.  See below. On 2/8/2018 8:36 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: Russ, thanks for your review. I don’t think your major concern quite rises to the level of being DISCUSS-worthy, but I’ve flagged it in my No Objection ballot and would expect a response from the auth

Re: [Gen-art] [Teas] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec-06

Hi Pavan, On 10/05/2017 07:44 AM, Vishnu Pavan Beeram wrote: > Lou, Hi! > > Responses inline (prefixed PB). > > Regards, > -Pavan > > From: Lou Berger mailto:lber...@labn.net>> > Date: Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 6:41 AM > To: "ext-vishnupa...@gm

Re: [Gen-art] [Teas] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec-06

Hi Pavan, WRT if this document updates rfc2961: I don't have a strong opinion on or objection to this document updating rfc2961. To have this document be an update, I do think we and it need to be clear on what exactly is being updated in 2961. After rereading both it's unclear to me what yo

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb-03

xt and update >> the IANA allocation rules for type value 5-31. Thanks. >> >> Best regards, >> Jie >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lber...@labn.net] >>> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 11:40 AM >>> To

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb-03

Jie, see below. On 02/25/2015 10:00 PM, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote: > Hi Elwyn, > > Thanks for your prompt response. Attached is a new revision which reflects > your comments and suggestions, please let me know if this revision is OK to > progress, thanks. > > Hi Lou, > > Thanks for your suggestio

Re: [Gen-art] [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-06.txt

> Stewart Bryant > Matthew Bocci > Lou Berger > Filename: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-p2mp-framework-06.txt > Pages : 12 > Date: 2014-01-16 > > Abstract: >

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

Russ/Adrian, A couple of editorial points: On 1/4/2014 8:28 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi Russ, > > Thanks for the review. Agreed! > ... > >> Other Comments: >> >> In the first sentence of Section 1, please define MPLS-TP as follows: >> OLD: >>The Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-10

Richard, Thank you for the review. I have one additional question/response on your comments: On 2/3/2013 2:13 PM, Richard Barnes wrote: > I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for > this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please > seehttp://www.alvestran

Re: [Gen-art] 答复: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-10

Dan/Richard, On 2/4/2013 10:05 PM, Lidan (Dan) wrote: > Hi Richard, > > Thanks for the review of this draft! > >> Section 2.1. Would be helpful to either include the old formats >> and/or say explicitly what is changing. > Added the original format of Config, ConfigAck and ConfigNack

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

Eek, I somehow managed to broadcast this! My apologies. Lou On 8/30/2012 10:27 AM, Lou Berger wrote: Adrian, Shout (or change the ID state) when you're ready for the update to be submitted. Thanks, Lou Original Message Subject:Re: Gen-ART review of

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

Adrian, Shout (or change the ID state) when you're ready for the update to be submitted. Thanks, Lou Original Message Subject:Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext-04 Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:25:19 -0400 From: Lou Berger To: Peter Ye

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

Peter, Thank you for the comments. Please see below for responses in-line. On 8/29/2012 11:31 PM, Peter Yee 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> Document: d

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

> Let me know if anything else needs to be added. > > Thanks, > Adrian > >> -Original Message- >> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lber...@labn.net] >> Sent: 18 October 2011 22:56 >> To: Vijay K. Gurbani >> Cc: draft-ietf-ccamp-attribute-...@tools.

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

Vijay, Please see below. On 10/17/2011 5:18 PM, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > . > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-04

Much thanks! On 2/22/2010 12:21 PM, McCann Peter-A001034 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 resolve these comments along with

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-03.txt

Thank you for the review! Lou On 2/23/2010 11:56 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for > draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-03.txt > > For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > . > > Please resolve these

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

Adrian, It looks like Dimitri is one step ahead (at least for now ;-) Take a look at: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&url1=draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-extensions-11.txt&url2=http://www.ietf.org/staging/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-extensions-12.txt I suspect all issues are a

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

Forgot to reply. Done ! Lou On 2/4/2010 11:42 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > 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. Garci

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

Will do & great catch!! Lou -Original Message- From: Adrian Farrel Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 16:42:50 To: Miguel A. Garcia; ; ; Cc: General Area Review Team Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-03.txt Hi Miguel, I think IANA owns the MIB module. You'r

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

okay, reasonable enough. While it is jargon, I think it is accepted in the computer science space... Thanks, Lou On 9/29/2009 6:10 PM, Francis Dupont wrote: > In your previous mail you wrote: > > => oops, catching an old message. > >> - 2.2 page 6 and 2.3 page 6: conformant -> complia

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

Francis, Much thanks for the comments. See below for a single response. On 9/7/2009 8:31 AM, Francis Dupont wrote: > (Oops, it seems I forgot to forward this) > > I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) > reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ospf-rfc2370bis-02.txt

The receiver does not accept Opaque LSAs that > violate the flooding scope (e.g., a type-11 (domain-wide) Opaque LSA > >/Miguel > >Lou Berger wrote: >>Miguel, >> Thank you very much for the comments. Please see in-line >> responses below. >>At 04:5

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ospf-rfc2370bis-02.txt

Miguel, Thank you very much for the comments. Please see in-line responses below. At 04:51 PM 3/24/2008, Miguel 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/ge

[Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-segment-recovery-03

Hi Ross, Given 198 just got assigned to an unrelated object, I have no doubt that IANA will catch this... Lou At 01:43 PM 10/23/2006, Ross Callon wrote: I think that I should enter an RFC editor's note to correct this. Ross At 06:05 PM 10/20/2006 -0400, Lou Berger wrote:

[Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-segment-recovery-03

Pasi, Good catch. Section 9.4., Secondary Record Route Object should have suggested 199. Lou At 04:55 AM 10/20/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.alv

[Gen-art] Re: FW: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-segment-recovery-02

Pasi, Thanks for the comments. see below for responses in-line. At 10:11 AM 9/26/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (Forwarding with updated email address) will fix that. > -Original Message- > From: Eronen Pasi (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki) > Sent: 26 September, 2006 17:02 > To: 'gen-art@ietf

[Gen-art] RE: Gen ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-03.txt

I'll add the reverence to M.3100. Lou At 06:42 PM 8/12/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lou, This is close - there's still a problem with "severity": > >>- Section 3.1.1 should give guidance for and examples of appropriate > >>use of Severity values. > > There's a whole body of work on this,

[Gen-art] Re: Gen ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-03.txt

Adrian, Thanks for the redirect. David, Much thanks for the comments. I'll review this tomorrow and follow up if I have any questions/issues to discuss. (If not, I'll just update and submit the draft.) Lou At 01:04 PM 8/9/2006, Adrian Farrel wrote: Forwarding to Lou's new