Reviewer: Peter Yee
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 by the IESG for the IETF
Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
For more
Hi Peter,
Thanks for the review! Your feedback has been addressed in the newest revision
(-09).
Best,
Peter
On 4/27/24 02:03, Peter Yee via Datatracker wrote:
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review result: Ready with Nits
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team
Reviewer: Peter Yee
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
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Reviewer: Peter Yee
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
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Reviewer: Peter Yee
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 by the IESG for the IETF
Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
For more
Reviewer: Peter Yee
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
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Reviewer: Peter Yee
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
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Greg,
“PAM Framework” sounds fine. And I’m happy with the rest of the
document. Thank you again for considering my input.
Kind regards,
-Peter
On 10/18/23, 6:53 PM, "Greg Mirsky" wrote:
Greg,
Thanks for considering my review comments. My responses to specific points are
found below.
Kind regards,
-Peter
From: Greg Mirsky
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 1:54 AM
To: Peter Yee
Cc: gen-art ; draft-ietf
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review result: Ready with Issues
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Reviewer: Peter Yee
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 processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more information
published
then... nothing happens?
Peter.
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
Hi, Justin,
The changes are acceptable to me. None of my points were strongly
enough held to be considered more than nits. Thank you for considering them.
Kind regards,
-Peter
On 6/18/23, 12:13 AM, "Justin Iurman" wrote:
Hi Peter,
Reviewer: Peter Yee
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
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Hi Paul,
thanks for your comments, I fixed both of them.
Changes will be part of the next version.
thanks,
Peter
On 12/05/2023 16:21, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
[Resending with the the wg email address corrected]
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review result: Ready with Issues
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Thanks for the quick response, Martin. I agree with all of your points below. I
appreciate your considering my belated input.
-Peter
-Original Message-
From: Martin Thomson
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 10:07 PM
To: Peter Yee ; gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-ohai
Reviewer: Peter Yee
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
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Reviewer: Peter Yee
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
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Reviewer: Peter Yee
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
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review result: Ready with Issues
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team
(Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF
Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
For more
Dear reviewers,
Can you verify that the recently published version 10 of the
constrained-join-proxy draft correctly addresses your reviews as
discussed on the mailing list?
many thanks,
greetings,
Peter
Peter van der Stok schreef op 2022-04-14 09:28:
This version 10 includes the results
Hi Michael,
I liked the reference to RFC6550 because it shows that other RFCs
provide the same modes; and it was argued to standardize only one mode.
Peter
Michael Richardson schreef op 2022-04-11 20:04:
The document defines a mechanism to assign a Device (Pledge) to a
(anima) domain
Hi Ines,
Many thanks for your review.
Please see inline comments below.
Greetings,
Peter
Reviewer: Ines Robles
Review result: On the Right Track
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review result: Ready with Issues
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Reviewer: Peter Yee
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
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Reviewer: Peter Yee
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 by the IESG for the IETF
Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
For more
Reviewer: Peter Yee
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
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new
.
Kind regards,
-Peter
From: Bron Gondwana
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2021 5:10 AM
To: Peter Yee ; gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-jmap-smime@ietf.org; j...@ietf.org; last-c...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-jmap-smime-07
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review result: Ready with Issues
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Reviewer: Peter Yee
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 processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version
Responses prefixed with [PEY] below.
Kind regards,
-Peter
-Original Message-
From: Gunnar Hellström [mailto:gunnar.hellst...@ghaccess.se]
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2021 11:36 AM
To: Peter Yee; gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: a...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-avtcore-multi-party
Thanks for the quick response, Gunnar. I've prefaced my replies below with
[PEY].
-Peter
-Original Message-
From: Gunnar Hellström [mailto:gunnar.hellst...@ghaccess.se]
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2021 2:14 PM
To: Peter Yee; gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: a...@ietf.org; draft-ietf
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review result: Ready with Issues
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Reviewer: Peter Yee
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
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Reviewer: Peter Yee
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
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Reviewer: Peter Yee
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
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Reviewer: Peter Yee
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
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review result: Ready with Issues
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Linda,
On 09/06/2020 22:20, Linda Dunbar wrote:
Peter,
Thank you for the explanation.
So you are saying that a node might not support RSVP or RSVP-TE, but can
advertise the TE related attributes for SR purpose. When the head node
receiving the advertisement also support RSVP-TE, it might
Linda,
On 09/06/2020 16:18, Linda Dunbar wrote:
Acee and Peter,
Thank you very much for the explanation.
My fundamental question is: What problem will be encountered when a node use
the TE information on links that RSVP-TE are not enabled?
The problem is on a node where RSVP is enabled
Linda,
On 09/06/2020 02:37, Linda Dunbar wrote:
Peter,
Thank you very much for adding the extra text to explain.
But SR is supposed to be transparent to all intermediate nodes. Does your draft
require a node to be specifically configured for each link to support or not
support SR or RSVP-TE
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review result: Ready with Issues
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Hi Linda,
On 01/06/2020 17:30, Linda Dunbar wrote:
Peter,
You said:
/“//the problem with existing advertisement is that RSVP-TE will use it,
even if it was not intended to be used by RSVP-TE.//”/
What is the problem if RSVP-TE use the advertisement? What specific
attributes that RSVP-TE
Linda,
On 29/05/2020 16:52, Linda Dunbar wrote:
Peter,
You said:
/we are not defining any new attributes./
/We are allowing an existing link attributes to be used by other
applications, including, but not limited to SRTE./
What prevent a node (or an application on the node) receiving the LSA
h node to advertise its own
SID and the SIDs of adjacent nodes. Can't they be encoded (or extended) in
OSPF's NODE ID?
we are not defining any new attributes.
We are allowing an existing link attributes to be used by other
applications, including, but not limited to SRTE.
thanks,
Peter
Minor issues:
scope of
this draft and if anything needs to be added in that regard it should be
done by updating the RFC8662.
regards,
Peter
Regards,
Elwyn
Sent from Samsung tablet.
Original message
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)"
Date: 14/05/2020 21:43 (GMT+00:00)
To: Alvaro Retana , &qu
Hi Elwyn,
please see inline (##PP)
On 11/05/2020 19:37, Elwyn Davies wrote:
Hi, Peter.
In the light of some of your responses here, I would just like to
clarify that one of the reasons for gen-art reviews is to try and make
extremely complicated technical documents more accessible for those
to the temporary allocations. A note about the temporary allocations
can be added with a RFC Editor note requesting its removal on final publication.
I suppose you meant section 6 - IANA Considerations.
I have updated the IANA section.
thanks,
Peter
___
Reviewer: Peter Yee
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
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Reviewer: Peter Yee
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
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review result: Ready with Issues
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Reviewer: Peter Yee
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 processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more information
Reviewer: Peter Yee
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
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review result: Ready with Issues
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Reviewer: Peter Yee
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
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Reviewer: Peter Yee
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
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review result: Ready with Issues
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Reviewer: Peter Yee
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
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new
Reviewer: Peter Yee
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 processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more information
Reviewer: Peter Yee
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 processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review result: Almost Ready
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
:
s/we need a single advertisement/a single advertisement is needed
Just being pedantic. If you like it, use it. If not, don't.
Done.
Please let me know if you agree or disagree with my responses.
thanks,
Peter
.
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-ar
Hi Francis,
I have included your comments in the new version (8) that has been
published.
thanks,
Peter
On 11/10/18 10:27 , Francis Dupont wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG
input.
-Peter
-Original Message-
From: Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@nostrum.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 9:55 AM
To: Peter Yee
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org; draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime@ietf.org;
i...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-campbell
Reviewer: Peter Yee
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
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Hello Francesca,
Thanks a lot for reviewing the draft, our responses in-line below. We have
submitted revision -12
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-insipid-logme-marking/) which
incorporates these responses and we believe resolves all of the issues.
Best regards,
Peter and Arun
Acee,
I’m fine with leaving out positive. I was actually trying to cover the case
where someone might interpret the TLV definition to allow zero SRGBs. It’s
nonsensical, of course, to do so.
-Peter
On Jun 13, 2018, at 7:08 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
Hi
Reviewer: Peter Yee
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
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Hi Robert, thanks for checking.
Although I tend to agree with you about 2119 language, as I understand
the intent of the author (and of the community of practice that uses
national bibliography numbers) is for this document (as RFC 3188 before
it) to define how NBNs are used in the field.
Peter
Robert, some fixes were posted over the weekend - if you have a chance,
please check the diff here:
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-hakala-urn-nbn-rfc3188bis-01.txt
Thanks!
Peter
On 5/1/18 12:35 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
> Reviewer: Robert Sparks
> Review result: Ready with
Reviewer: Peter Yee
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 processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version
Works well enough for me. Thank you again for considering my input.
-Peter
On 5/10/18, 8:14 AM, "Leeyoung" <leeyo...@huawei.com> wrote:
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your further comments. It looks like the only remaining issue is the
fo
Young and Daniele,
Thanks for addressing my comments. My apologies for not responding earlier –
I’m on the road at the moment. I’ve made specific responses below prefaced by
PEY>.
Kind regards,
-Peter
On 5/4/18, 8
On 5/1/18 1:24 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 5/1/18 12:35 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
>> Reviewer: Robert Sparks
>> Review result: Ready with Issues
>>
>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews a
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review result: Ready with Issues
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
he URN registration
> to try to put constraints on fees that a national library might collect
> (especially using a 2119 SHOULD).
Agreed.
Peter
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
Reviewer: Peter Yee
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 processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version
nce a minute to see a brief debug window open up, and then perform something
like a million-message-attack using a single debug message, then they're kinda
wasting their abilities in attacking TLS servers...
Peter.
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ie
nows what it's up for because it
explicitly asked for it.
>so this leaves case #2,
Actually it leaves 1, 2, and 3. 4 is kinda pathological, so really the
problem is "all of the cases".
Peter.
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
d
say it should use the same language and terminology that the technical spec
that's being implemented is written in. Let me just check for a second what
that could be.
Gosh, it's USASCII.
Peter.
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
speak extended
alerts") as an extension, apart from that you just need to define the alert
format, which I assume just means adding a free-form text field to the
existing alerts.
Peter.
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/m
broken) status quo that people in this thread are trying to
fix.
Peter.
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
sentially no
information at all. Having a debug-mode capability to send back a long-form
error message would be extremely useful, maybe an extension to say "send back
a long-form alert with more than just 'BOOLEAN succeeded = FALSE' in it".
Peter.
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review result: Ready with Issues
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review result: Ready with Issues
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
full ICE
> implementation could conveying the initial ICE description or response thereto
> ..." change to "convey"
Noted and fixed under source control:
https://github.com/ice-wg/trickle/commit/3c86705bd211e1b5bc2c8f7fc199ec2c2db7595d#diff-f7ced034e0
r solution is your original one,
make it a MUST. If the CA indicates it supports POST then there's no need to
use GET, so it can be changed to a MUST:
If the remote CA supports POST, the CMS-encoded SCEP messages MUST be sent
via HTTP POST instead of HTTP GET.
>Could
Reviewer: Peter Yee
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 processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version
g".
That should have been Page 3. Typo on my part.
I appreciate you addressing my comments (tardy as they were).
-Peter
-Original Message-
From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 3:02 PM
To: Peter Yee; gen-art@ietf.o
Reviewer: Peter Yee
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
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
when I got here". It's supposed to illustrate state
transitions, so it's both a diagram and an example of what's supposed to
happen. I'm reluctant to start rewriting that to any extent because, well,
would you want to start poking around in there?
>Q8:
>
>The text says “previou
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review result: Ready with Issues
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting
Reviewer: Peter Yee
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 processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review result: Ready with Issues
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
was
understood. To be clear, I'm not saying anything stated in the draft appeared
to be incorrect. It just made for more difficult reading and parsing.
I appreciate the quick response and look forward to reading the revised
document.
-Peter
-Original Message
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review result: Ready with Issues
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
On 6/26/17 5:48 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - Filament wrote:
> Hi Linda,
>
> Thanks for your review. Comments inline.
>
> On 6/26/17 4:53 PM, Linda Dunbar wrote:
>>
>> Reviewer: Linda Dunbar
>> Review result: Ready
>>
>> I am the assigned Gen-
sing
within the application server or an authentication module thereof - for
instance, instead of performing case mapping on first receiving data
from the client (thus implying that the case information is lost through
most of the processing stages), it's better to lose that info
the document.
Perhaps we could add the following sentence to the first paragraph of
the introduction:
(PRECIS is restricted to Unicode and does not support any other
coded character set [RFC6365].)
Would that address your concern?
Peter
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
1 - 100 of 346 matches
Mail list logo
