Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-11

> On May 18, 2016, at 9:29 PM 5/18/16, Jari Arkko wrote: > > Thanks for your review, Ralph! You're welcome. I'm glad to hear you found the review valuable. Responses in line... > > I do think some of the points you raised need to be addressed. Inline: > >> >> #

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-11

Thanks for your review, Ralph! I do think some of the points you raised need to be addressed. Inline: > > # > > I often react to the use of RFC 2119 language in an Informational document by > asking is that language really necessary? I'll ask the question here: in the > context of this

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-11

Kuehlewind (IETF) Objet : RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-11 Thanks a lot for this review. We have proposed answer to the different points and hope that this is more clear. When we believe that it was needed, we have suggested text changes. If you think that this should result

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-11

, The authors -Message d'origine- De : Ralph Droms (rdroms) [mailto:rdr...@cisco.com] Envoyé : jeudi 28 avril 2016 21:23 À : gen-art@ietf.org Cc : draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines@tools.ietf.org Objet : Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-11 I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer

[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-11

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, please see the FAQ at