I'll only comment on a couple of followups below. I think I've
described my POV and I probably won't do further follow-ups.
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009, Eric Rosen wrote:
Pekka>At the minimum, the status (intent) of the spec should be
Pekka>clarified. Even better would be to improve and include
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 any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-l3vpn
Review of draft-ietf-dna-simple-09
I have reviewed draft-ietf-dna-simple. Overall, I believe this document still
contains significant technical issues that need to be addressed before
it would be suitable for publication as a Proposed Standard. In particular,
the version of the document sent to
Hi Ted,
I was waiting for some feedback from Andy but let's continue the discussion.
Ted Hardie wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> Thanks for your quick reply; a few notes in-line below.
>
>
>> Hmm, I see your point. Because I reuse definitions from RFC 3986, you think
>> that these definitions should be
Gonzalo,
I now see how my initial reading of the document was informed mainly
by expectations set by the title and the abstract. I suspect that I
might be alone in this. If the title and the abstract were to better
reflect the content and to avoid what I read as overpromise, the
documen
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 09:30:47AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> That is the shortest gen-art review I have seen. Good work, SCRAM
> authors! :-)
Well, -07 had an earlier gen-art review, and that one wasn't quite as
short... :)
But still, overall fairly short. We've only worked on this for..
This is an early security directorate review at the request of the working
group.
This draft is of extensions to existing drafts. Those existing
drafts permit a Device to request its location using HTTP based on the
source IP address in the requesting packets and include security
precautions based
On Oct 20, 2009, at 2:30 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Summary:
This draft is ready for publication as a draft standard.
Did you mean proposed standard?
Uhm, yes, sorry. I guess after typing "draft" once in the sentence I
got carried away.
___
I
Ben Campbell writes:
> 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 wait for direction from your document shepherd
> or AD before posting a new
