Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-01

Forwarding to the authors and WG Regards, Benoit I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at . Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.

Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-01

Forwarding to the authors and WG Regards, Benoit I am guessing that the authors intended the addition of the text emphasizing that the no-zone typedefs are derived general typedef addresses the difference in the patterns. Is there a YANG rule that says tat if typedef X is derived from typede

Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-01

Joel, this is specified in the third paragraph of section 9.4.6 of RFC 6020: 9.4.6. The pattern Statement The "pattern" statement, which is an optional substatement to the "type" statement, takes as an argument a regular expression string, as defined in [XSD-TYPES]. It is used to rest

Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-01

Thank you Juergen. I see that the pattern statement is therefore correct. And presumably it is a judgment call as to hw to write te new pattern to restrict the old one. Personally, I find a pattern statement that covers a whole lot of other things, but that happens when combined with the pare

Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-01

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > I am guessing that the authors intended the addition of the text > emphasizing that the no-zone typedefs are derived general typedef addresses > the difference in the patterns. > > Is there a YANG rule that says tat if typedef X is derived

Re: Gen-art telechat review: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-06.txt (updated for -07)

On 5/10/2013 8:12 AM, Robert Sparks wrote: Thanks Bing - The updates make the document better, and I appreciate the resolution of referencing Tim's expired draft. So the solution is to not reference it? I see the name of the draft is mentioned in the acknowledgments as: [draft-chown-v6ops-ren

Re: Last Call: (The Internet Numbers Registry System) to Informational RFC

On May 11, 2013, at 11:17 AM, SM wrote: > If it's a policy it cannot be a principle. Sorry, but unless you can point to some relevant real-world examples of self-executing, self-sustaining principles, or you're a nihilist and don't really believe that such things as principles exist at all, th

Re: Last Call: (The Internet Numbers Registry System) to Informational RFC

On May 11, 2013, at 7:34 PM, SM wrote: > At 13:08 11-05-2013, Tom Vest wrote: >> Sorry, but unless you can point to some relevant real-world examples of >> self-executing, self-sustaining principles, or you're a nihilist and don't >> really believe that such things as principles exist at all, t

RE: Gen-art telechat review: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-06.txt (updated for -07)

Hi, Robert Your careful review and comments really helped improving the document a lot. Many thanks to you. All the best, Bing > -Original Message- > From: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjspa...@nostrum.com] > Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 11:13 PM > To: Liubing (Leo) > Cc: re...@ietf.org; draft-ie

Re: Gen-art telechat review: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-06.txt (updated for -07)

Yes, thanks all - I think we're nearly there… Tim On 13 May 2013, at 02:58, Liubing (Leo) wrote: > Hi, Robert > > Your careful review and comments really helped improving the document a lot. > Many thanks to you. > > All the best, > Bing > >> -Original Message- >> From: Robert Sparks

Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-forces-interop-07

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at . Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-forces-interop-07 Reviewer: B

MalcolmBETTS90013533 is out of the office.

I will be out of the office starting 10/05/2013 and will not return until 20/05/2013. I will not have access to email, I will respond to your message when I return on May 20th.

Re: Last Call: (The Internet Numbers Registry System) to Informational RFC

At 13:45 12-05-2013, Tom Vest wrote: I certainly did not intend to misrepresent your position. But given the fact that the "part of a message" that you reproduced was offered in response to doubts that you yourself raised about the points covered therein (esp. "operational need"), what is your