Also, it looks like the [email protected] alias has a bad address for the author:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The original message was received at Mon, 3 Oct 2011 19:03:50 +0300 from vaebh102.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.23] ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- <[email protected]> (reason: 550 Host unknown) ----- Transcript of session follows ----- 550 5.1.2 <[email protected]>... Host unknown (Name server: autorescheckpoint.nokia.com: host not found) Reporting-MTA: dns; mgw-da02.nokia.com Received-From-MTA: DNS; vaebh102.europe.nokia.com Arrival-Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 19:03:50 +0300 Final-Recipient: RFC822; [email protected] Action: failed Status: 5.1.2 Remote-MTA: DNS; autorescheckpoint.nokia.com Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550 Host unknown Last-Attempt-Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 19:03:50 +0300 Return-Path: <[email protected]> Received: from vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh102.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.23]) by mgw-da02.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p93G3W9w030833 for <[email protected]>; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 19:03:50 +0300 Resent-From: [email protected] Received: from vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.22]) by vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 3 Oct 2011 19:03:47 +0300 Received: from mx-da02.nokia.com ([147.243.142.137]) by vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 3 Oct 2011 19:03:41 +0300 Received: from merlot.tools.ietf.org (merlot.tools.ietf.org [194.146.105.14]) by mx-da02.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id p93G3YeE032688 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <[email protected]>; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 19:03:37 +0300 X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.4 mx-da02.nokia.com p93G3YeE032688 Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 19:03:37 +0300 Resent-Message-Id: <[email protected]> Received: from nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net ([2001:470:1f03:267::2]:58296 helo=nostrum.com ident=root) by merlot.tools.ietf.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from <[email protected]>) id 1RAkzI-0000gn-KL for [email protected]; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:03:29 +0200 Received: from dn3-53.estacado.net (vicuna-alt.estacado.net [75.53.54.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p93G2pZO029827 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:02:52 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from [email protected]) From: "ext Ben Campbell" <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:02:50 -0500 Message-Id: <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected] Review Team" <[email protected]>, The IETF <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3) Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 75.53.54.121 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism) X-Helo-Check-Failed: Verification failed for HELO nostrum.com X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:470:1f03:267::2 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: [email protected] X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: [email protected] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on merlot.tools.ietf.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,KHOP_DYNAMIC, X_HELO_CHECK_FAILED,X_IPV6_ADDRESS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 Subject: Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-10 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:51:10 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on merlot.tools.ietf.org) Resent-To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] List-ID: <[email protected]> X-Nokia-AV: Clean X-pstn-spam: N X-Spam-Score: 0.00% X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Oct 2011 16:03:42.0743 (UTC) FILETIME=[05D86270:01CC81E6] On Oct 3, 2011, at 11:02 AM, Ben Campbell wrote: > 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 wait for direction from your document shepherd > or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > > Document: draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-10 > Reviewer: Ben Campbell > Review Date: 2011-10-03 > IESG Telechat date: 2011-10-06 > > Summary: This draft may be ready for publication as a draft standard. All of > the substantive comments from my last call review have been addressed either > in the draft or in email. I do have one new concern below, but I am agnostic > on whether that should affect publication. > > Major issues: None > > > Minor issues: > > -- Section 7, first paragraph: "During the review of this document, It > emerged that there are different possible interpretations of [RFC5798]. The > Authors of that document and the VRRP working group were unable to reach > consensus on which interpretation is correct." > > That's rather unfortunate, since that RFC specifies the protocol this MIB is > _for_. I wish we could do better. From my limited knowledge here, I am > agnostic as to whether the disagreement would make a substantive difference > in the MIB. I put this in the "minor" section in hopes that it does not--but > people more versed in the protocol should think about this. > > Nits/editorial comments: > > -- definition of "vrrpv3StatisticsRefreshRate" > > s/milli-seconds/milliseconds > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
