Re: [sidr] AD Review of draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol-04

2017-01-09 Thread Alvaro Retana (aretana)
Tim: Congratulations! ☺ I think we’re in sync with everything else, just this last piece is outstanding. Thanks! Alvaro. On 1/9/17, 6:55 AM, "Tim Bruijnzeels" > wrote: Let me try to make the point again – I didn’t do a good job above. In fact,

Re: [sidr] AD Review of draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol-04

2017-01-09 Thread Tim Bruijnzeels
Hi Alvaro, in-line > On 07 Jan 2017, at 00:04, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote: > > On 12/28/16, 11:43 AM, "Tim Bruijnzeels" > wrote: > > Tim: > > Happy New Year!! Thank you, you (all) too!! > > > | Thank you for your in-depth

Re: [sidr] AD Review of draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol-04

2017-01-06 Thread Alvaro Retana (aretana)
On 12/28/16, 11:43 AM, "Tim Bruijnzeels" wrote: Tim: Happy New Year!! | Thank you for your in-depth review :) It really helps to clarify the document. Replies in-line. | | I attached an updated document, but.. I did not discuss this with co-authors yet. So, I invite

Re: [sidr] AD Review of draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol-04

2016-12-28 Thread Tim Bruijnzeels
Dear Alvaro, all, Thank you for your in-depth review :) It really helps to clarify the document. Replies in-line. I attached an updated document, but.. I did not discuss this with co-authors yet. So, I invite any of them to disagree or suggest changes to the things below. > On 20 Dec 2016,

[sidr] AD Review of draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol-04

2016-12-20 Thread Alvaro Retana (aretana)
Dear authors: Hi! I just finished reading this document. I have several comments (please see below); I marked many of them as “Major”, some because of the use of Normative language, but my main concern is that I think error conditions in the protocol are underspecified (see M7, M8, M10,