Thanks! I have cleared.
Jari
On Jan 22, 2014, at 11:18 PM, Victor Kuarsingh vic...@jvknet.com wrote:
Jari,
I just responded to the gen-art list and Martin on his comments.
I have made a number of changes that address his comments and have used much
of his text. ( I will be sending the
Martin,
On 15 January 2014 19:40, Victor Kuarsinghvic...@jvknet.com wrote:
Which seems wise given their somewhat contentious nature. But then
the entirely of Section 2 does exactly the opposite. I don't know
what the right answer is here, but maybe the right thing to do is
delete Section 2.
On 22 January 2014 13:00, Benoit Claise bcla...@cisco.com wrote:
Is your concern that the sentence IPv6 is considered the strategic answer
in section 2 is not stressed enough?
I think that the text in the second paragraph is slightly more loaded.
In particular,
These issues
leave an
On 22/01/2014 16:01, Martin Thomson wrote:
On 22 January 2014 13:00, Benoit Claise bcla...@cisco.com wrote:
Is your concern that the sentence IPv6 is considered the strategic answer
in section 2 is not stressed enough?
I think that the text in the second paragraph is slightly more loaded.
Martin,
I appreciate your review and followup. Your input was most helpful. I
have made a few changes which will address you concerns.
(1). Used your simplified text in IANA considerations section
(2). Added CGN label to Diagrams
(3). Removed significant amount of text from Modification
Martin,
I am loading a new new version today, but here is that section (originally
called Motivation) for quick review.
** Beginning of section **
Existing Network Considerations (new name of section)
The selection of CGN may be made by an operator based on a number of
factors. The overall
WFM
On 22 January 2014 23:22, Victor Kuarsingh vic...@jvknet.com wrote:
Martin,
I am loading a new new version today, but here is that section (originally
called Motivation) for quick review.
** Beginning of section **
Existing Network Considerations (new name of section)
The selection
Thanks for your detailed review, Martin!
And thank you Victor for a very useful document!
Much of the discussion in this thread is important but also partly editorial.
I'll leave it to sort out between yourselves.
However, I do think Section 6 last sentence:
Should a provide choose to use
Jari/Martin,
With respect to section 6, I agree we can remove the odd text and I will
follow Martin's suggestion. The inclusion of that text was a bit
historical as the document was actual first drafted before RFC6598.
I would agree that (as this point) that text, as I have in the document,
On 15 January 2014 19:40, Victor Kuarsingh vic...@jvknet.com wrote:
Which seems wise given their somewhat contentious nature. But then
the entirely of Section 2 does exactly the opposite. I don't know
what the right answer is here, but maybe the right thing to do is
delete Section 2.
[VK]
Martin,
My responses in-line
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Martin Thomson martin.thom...@gmail.comwrote:
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.
Please resolve these
Benoit/Martin,
I apologize. I seem to have missed reading that email. I review and replay.
regards,
Victor K
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Benoit Claise bcla...@cisco.com wrote:
Dear authors, doc. shepherd,
Can you please answer Martin.
Regards, Benoit
I am the assigned Gen-ART
Dear authors, doc. shepherd,
Can you please answer Martin.
Regards, Benoit
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.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call
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.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment-04
14 matches
Mail list logo
