>>> 3. The definition of canonicalization refers to section 2.2 of RFC
>>> 5485 (which talks about ASCII) vs RFC8805 which talks about UTF-8. Is
>>> this disparity an issue?
>>
>> russ, how do you want to handle?
>
> This is really about line endings, but it would probably be best to
> assign a
Responding to just two places where Randy handed off to me ...
>> 3. The definition of canonicalization refers to section 2.2 of RFC
>> 5485 (which talks about ASCII) vs RFC8805 which talks about UTF-8. Is
>> this disparity an issue?
>
> russ, how do you want to handle?
This is really about
hi rob et alia,
first, thanks a milion for a real review. really appreciated.
> 1. Specifically, I think that it would be useful for this document to
> offer more clarity as to whether the "remarks: Geofeed" tag
> specifically ties the content of the URL to a document in RFC 8805
> format, or
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 06:06:09PM +,
Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote
a message of 120 lines which said:
> Perhaps the explanation text needs a bit more clarity (that's
> presuming that my explanation is on the right track).
Yes, perfectly correct. Sorry, I did not provide a copy-and-paste
Stephane or Warren can probably can correct me as a butcher the explanation,
but ...
... I think that the issue is that the appendix is given as sequence of steps
to follow, and in Step 1 (A.1), the certificate is generated using an
elliptical curve algorithm, which means that by the time that
I'm confused here. What is the the correction? Seems like a fixed
version of the command using RSA instead of EC is correct, but I'm not
clear what the exact verification will be.
Joe
On 4/12/21 11:19, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Speaking to Warren offline, he suggests (as an author)
Works for me.
Joe
On 4/12/21 11:20, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Speaking to Warren offline, he suggests (as an author) that this errata
> should be verified.
>
> Please let me know this week if anyone feels differently, otherwise I'll
> verify this at the end of the week.
>
> Thanks,
Sounds reasonable to me.
Joe
On 4/12/21 11:18, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Speaking to Warren offline, he suggests (as an author) that this errata
> should be verified.
>
> Please let me know this week if anyone feels differently, otherwise I'll
> verify this at the end of the week.
Thanks, Erez.
Joe
On 4/12/21 03:11, Erez Segev wrote:
> Hi OPSAWG members,
>
> No, I am not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft.
>
> Thanks and regards,
>
> Erez Segev
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Aguado Martin, Alejandro (Nokia - ES/Madrid)
>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 7,
Hi,
Speaking to Warren offline, he suggests (as an author) that this errata should
be verified.
Please let me know this week if anyone feels differently, otherwise I'll verify
this at the end of the week.
Thanks,
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: RFC Errata System
> Sent: 05 October
Hi,
Speaking to Warren offline, he suggests (as an author) that this errata should
be verified.
Please let me know this week if anyone feels differently, otherwise I'll verify
this at the end of the week.
Thanks,
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: RFC Errata System
> Sent: 05 October
Hi,
Speaking to Warren offline, he suggests (as an author) that this errata should
be verified.
Please let me know this week if anyone feels differently, otherwise I'll verify
this at the end of the week.
Thanks,
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: RFC Errata System
> Sent: 05 October
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-yang-10: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer
Hi,
Sorry for the delayed AD review.
Whilst I regard this document is useful, and a good thing (tm), I have a couple
of concerns about the exact relationship between this document (std's track)
and to RFC 8805, that is informational.
Main comments:
1. Specifically, I think that it would be
Hi Joe,
Sorry for the previous confusion, this is the first time I do a pool.
There is not any IPR involved regarding this draft.
Kind regards,
Lucía.
El mar., 6 abr. 2021 18:59, Joe Clarke (jclarke)
escribió:
> Lucia, before I close the WGLC on these documents, I want to make sure all
>
Test
-Original Message-
From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 9:35 AM
To: opsawg@ietf.org
Cc: Erez Segev
Subject: TR: OFFLIST TR: IPR CALL: draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm
NOTICE: This email was received from an EXTERNAL sender.
Hi all,
Forwarding the reply
Hi OPSAWG members,
No, I am not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft.
Thanks and regards,
Erez Segev
-Original Message-
From: Aguado Martin, Alejandro (Nokia - ES/Madrid)
Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 12:48 PM
To: adr...@olddog.co.uk; erez.se...@ecitele.com
Cc:
17 matches
Mail list logo
