Thanks – if the AD is happy, than I am happy as well. Regards,
Dan From: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: יום ד 04 מאי 2016 18:59 To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) Cc: General Area Review Team; [email protected] Subject: Re: Geb-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-04 Hi, Dan, Thanks for following up. Alvaro, as responsible AD, responded as you can see here: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg13149.html Thanks, — Carlos. On May 4, 2016, at 6:46 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. For more information, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq >. Document: draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-04 Reviewer: Dan Romascanu Review Date: 2016/5/4 IETF LC End Date: 2016/4/12 IESG Telechat date: 2016/5/5 Summary: Ready with one issue The document is well written and complete, but requires a good understanding of BFD (RFC 5880, RFC 5881) and of the use-cases (draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case) document. In my initial review I raised two issues. One was accepted and an editorial change was made in draft-04. The second one was: - This document extends the usage of port 3785 adding the function of being the destination port for the S-BFD echo packets. Should not this be regarded as an update of RFC 5881 and mentioned as such on the front page? The authors answered the following: - I do not have a strong opinion one way or another — I will leave this one to the AD’s guidance, and I am happy to mark this document as updating RFC 5881 if that’s the preferred direction No change was made. I would like to make sure that the responsible AD has seen this comment. It’s not a show-stopper, but I still believe that marking this document as an update to RFC 5881 is better. Major issues: Minor issues: Nits/editorial comments:
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
