I dropped the ietf from the recipients for this email since this is too minor
to bug everyone with the nit, but...
The first sentence of section 3 is currently:
Addition of "non-PHP behavior" adds a variable of attacks on the
label assigned by the Egress node.
Do we really intend to say:
Last call is over. Please respin (I see the most recent version dated
January 2009).
thanks, Ross
-Original Message-
From: JP Vasseur [mailto:jvass...@cisco.com]
Sent: 28 April 2009 01:37
To: Ross Callon
Cc: Francis Dupont; General Area Review Team; JP Vasseur; Jean-Louis Le
Roux
You need to wait for the IETF last call to end before respinning. Once
the IETF last call ends, then yes please respin.
Thanks, Ross
-Original Message-
From: JP Vasseur [mailto:jvass...@cisco.com]
Sent: 24 April 2009 02:05
To: Francis Dupont; Ross Callon
Cc: General Area Review Team
It seems pretty clear that the comment actually refers to the
"Conventions used in this document" section.
Ross
-Original Message-
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk]
Sent: 27 January 2009 17:55
To: Ross Callon; Gonzalo Camarillo
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org;
04:31
To: draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-r...@tools.ietf.org
Cc: Ross Callon; gen-art@ietf.org; ccamp-cha...@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt
Hi,
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Ge
I added an RFC editor's note to cover these editorial points.
Thanks, Ross
-Original Message-
From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:spen...@wonderhamster.org]
Sent: 25 November 2008 16:34
To: suk...@ece.drexel.edu; j...@ece.drexel.edu; j...@cisco.com
Cc: General Area Review Team; Ross C
enda soon
after the IETF meeting.
Thanks, Ross
-Original Message-
From: Danny McPherson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 11 November 2008 00:32
To: Brian E Carpenter; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: General Area Review Team; Ross Callon;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Gen-A
Thanks Elwyn!
I have put in an RFC editor's note to correct the spelling of your name.
;-)
thanks, Ross
-Original Message-
From: Elwyn Davies [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 19 September 2008 20:13
To: General Area Review Team
Cc: Thomas Clausen; Christopher Dearlove; Cedric Adjih;
[EM
> Appendix A: Is this normative? If not should it use RFC 2119
language?
>
> Appendix B: Is this normative? If not should it use RFC 2119
language?
> In particular...
Elwyn;
First of all, thanks for another very through and well-done review. I
just have one comment with regard to the use
front of the IESG.
Thanks, Ross
-Original Message-
From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 01 September 2008 10:07
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Ross Callon; General Area Review Team; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Patrick
Droz; Jamal Hadi Salim
Subject: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-forces
At 10:22 AM 5/31/2007 +0100, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Maybe someone could clarify the progress of the IS-IS RFCs from
Informational to Standards Track.
It seems to me that this operation has been progressing for the longest
time, and it is leaving everyone in a state of mild confusion about what
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:
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 select
I gather from reading through this exchange, and through the
document, that an update will be needed before the document
is put on the IESG agenda.
I don't expect to have any additional comments, and thus
suggest that you go ahead and update the draft to respond
to the Gen-ART comments. Let me kn
Lou Berger is now at [EMAIL PROTECTED] I will let Lou
supply the rest of his current address (corporate affiliation,
and so on).
Ross
At 12:07 PM 8/9/2006 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please change the GenART review status to "on the right track,
but has open issues". No usable email addr
14 matches
Mail list logo
