Thanks for your review, Meral. I have entered a No Objection ballot. Alissa
> On Oct 17, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Meral Shirazipour > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Last try, I promise. > > Best Regards, > Meral > --- > Meral Shirazipour > Ericsson Research > www.ericsson.com <http://www.ericsson.com/> > > From: Gen-art [mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Meral Shirazipour > Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 6:25 PM > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-10 > > Trying again-got a bounce back from the draft’s email list. > > Best Regards, > Meral > --- > Meral Shirazipour > Ericsson Research > www.ericsson.com <http://www.ericsson.com/> > > From: Gen-art [mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Meral Shirazipour > Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 6:21 PM > To: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-10 > > 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 treat these comments just like any other last call > comments. > For more information, please see the FAQ at > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>>. > > > Document: draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-10 > Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour > Review Date: 2017-10-16 > IETF LC End Date: 2017-10-19 > IESG Telechat date: 2017-10-26 > > > Summary: > This draft is ready to be published as Experimental RFC but I have some > comments. > > Major issues: > > Minor issues: > The discussions around misbehaving middleboxes was good but more examples > would have been better: > Would it make sense to add some examples of well-behaved TCP-proxy > middleboxes (TCP terminating proxies)? What is allowed for example? E.g. can > the TEP on each side of the proxy be different? > Security section could also be enhanced in that regard. > > Nits/editorial comments: > [Page 7] , "TEP identifer"---->"TEP identifier" > [Page 16] , "Futhermore,"-----"Furthermore," > [Page 19], "unlikely to to"---->"unlikely to" > General, some acronyms not spelled at first use > > > Best Regards, > Meral > --- > Meral Shirazipour > Ericsson Research > www.ericsson.com > <http://www.ericsson.com/>_______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
