Thanks for the review & update, Dan & Carlos, Alvaro! Jari
On 04 May 2016, at 12:06, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> 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
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
