I reviewed the draft-ietf-softwire-map-10.txt document but I was too
involved in Softwire stuff to be able to judge whether the text is
understable without prior knowledge. Can someone from the team look
at it and summary in the list?
Thanks
francis.dup...@fdupont.fr
viewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20141009
IETF LC End Date: 20141010
IESG Telechat date: 20141016
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
First please note I participated to Softwire WG work so it is possible
the document is not understantable by someo
packet-parallelization-02.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20140930
IETF LC End Date: 20140929
IESG Telechat date: 20141002
Summary: Ready with nits
Major issues: none
Minor issues: none
Nits/editorial comments:
- Abstract page 1: the FE abbrev should be introduced (in particular
one can believe it
In your previous mail you wrote:
> Thanks, Francis, for the review.
>
> > first a meta-question: should this kind of documents refer to its
> > parent, RFC 6237 (same subject but RFC 6237 is Experimental, the
> > I-D is for Standards Track)? IMHO it should not (so the I-D is
> > right)
search-01.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20140717
IETF LC End Date: 20140721
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
first a meta-question: should this kind of documents refer to its
parent, RFC 6237 (same subject b
In your previous mail you wrote:
> > - 3 3.7 (twice), 3.11 page 4 and 4 4.3 page 6: need -> needs
>
> i believe that "x need not do y" is correct, so will leave it to the
> rfced if you will indulge
=> you are the native English writer (:-). Anyway the RFC Editor
could fix it if needed...
11.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20140703
IETF LC End Date: 20140703
IESG Telechat date: 20140710
Summary: Ready for nits
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
- Abstract page 1 and 1 page 2: only BGP is a well known abbrev,
AS or RPKI are not, now it is
In your previous mail you wrote:
> Dear Francis,
> I've done the changes, but I need some more information:
>
> > 4.2 page 9 (connection-address): (ambiguous wording)
> > ... An IP address
> > SHOULD be used, but an FQDN MAY be used in place of an IP address.
>
> [JIG] I'm no
really equivalent from a
crypto point of view but in this particular use case it doesn't matter.
To finish the Orchid v1 (RFC4843) uses an Encode_100 with the middle
100 bits.
Regards
Francis Dupont
PS (*): RFC5201bis misses the 128 bit Context ID in the hash input
so there is already a
21.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20140620
IETF LC End Date: 20140620
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
(a metacomment anyway: with the arrival of IPv6 we should not spend
too much time/effort on NAT traversal...)
Nits/editorial co
05.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20140530
IETF LC End Date: 20140530
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
(only editorial stuff in the case they are not caught by the RFC Editor)
- 2 NEW page 4: contraint -> c
07.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20140428
IETF LC End Date: 20140503
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
- in Toc page 2 and 6 (title) page 8: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments
- 5 page 8: co
In your previous mail you wrote:
> Yes, this duplicate paragraph in IANA considerations is a typo introduced
=> fine (the problem with a typo is authors' intent is not clear / hard
to infer).
> I'm also willing to change to Acknowledgments (no e after g) which I think
> is the suggestion bei
ion-04.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20140401
IETF LC End Date: 20130403
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Not Ready
Major issues: there is a typo in the IANA considerations, i.e., the
heart of the document. It seems to be a trivial typo but there is no
proof of this...
Minor issues
ers-01.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20140222
IETF LC End Date: 20140225
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None (but some basic concerns were raised during the last call)
Nits/editorial comments:
- ToC page 2 and 5 page 3: Acknowledg
n-band-signaling-03.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20140211
IETF LC End Date: 20140212
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
- the number of authors is greater than the (soft) limit
- 1 page 5: too many 'o' in
00.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20140122
IETF LC End Date: 20140211
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
- typo 3 page 2:
... The actual
polices used for production certificates has a significant impact
03.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20130104
IETF LC End Date: 20130110
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: (not really technical)
PKCS#12 was subject to concerns from teh cryptography community,
in particular from Peter Gutmann, based on:
- its (too
03.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20131120
IETF LC End Date: 20131126
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
- ToC page 3 and 9 page 30: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments
- 1.1 page 5 (ECMP): Pathing -> Path
04.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20131120
IETF LC End Date: 20131127
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
- Abstract page 1: usually the Abstract should not reference an RFC
by its number. IMHO here it is the exc
viewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20131028
IETF LC End Date: 20131106
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
- 1 pages 2 and 3: I have a concern with the order of definitions.
IMHO there are 3 solutions:
* keep the do
13.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20131014
IETF LC End Date: 20131027
IESG Telechat date: 20131024
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments: (BTW only editorial comments)
- Title page 1: Ruting -> Routing
- Abstract page 1: e.g. -> e.g.,
- To
viewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20130927
IETF LC End Date: 20130930
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Almost Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: the title and the abstract must get an explicit expansion
of the RELOAD acronym, e.g., the title shoud be:
An extension to REsource LOcati
cation-02.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20130925
IETF LC End Date: 20130924
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
- ToC page 2 and 7 page 7: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments
- 3 page 4: "Figure 1"
viewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20130927
IETF LC End Date: 20130930
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Almost Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: the title and the abstract must get an explicit expansion
of the RELOAD acronym, e.g., the title shoud be:
An extension to REsource LOcati
cation-02.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20130925
IETF LC End Date: 20130924
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
- ToC page 2 and 7 page 7: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments
- 3 page 4: "Figure 1"
03.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20130827
IETF LC End Date: 20130903
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
- in general I don't like the style used in this document but it is still
understable.
- abstract pa
In your previous mail you wrote:
> Thank you for the review. I have made all three changes in my
> working version that will become the -04.
=> thanks, I raised the status to "Ready" even the -04 doesn't seem
to be available in the tools.ietf.org I-D repository?
francis.dup...@fdupont.fr
PS:
ate-03.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 2013-08-14
IETF LC End Date: 2013-08-19
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Almost ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues:
- this is in fact a pure editorial concern but as it can have a big impact
on not IETF expert readers I put it here:
At t
04.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20130722
IETF LC End Date: 20130724
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
- headers page 2: the keyword section is in the headers (vs the body).
This is not the usual place... (BTW it
In your previous mail you wrote:
> > - 1 page 3: take benefit of the first "Extended Reports" to introduce
> > the XR abbrev
>
> It is in the title, but I've expanded it at first occurrence in text.
=> the convention is to consider the title and the abstract as other
independent parts of th
In your previous mail you wrote:
> > Minor issues: None
>
> OK. Thanks but it appears the document is headed back to another WGLC
> due to other comments, mostly due to the RtgDir review comments.
=> yes, I saw that.
> > Nits/editorial comments:
> > - ToC page 3 and 7 page 12: Acknowle
rd-rle-metrics-05.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20130625
IETF LC End Date: 20130701
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
- title page 1: for Run Length -> for Run Length
- ToC page 2 and 9 page 9: Acknowl
10.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20130617
IETF LC End Date: 20130619
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
- ToC page 3 and 7 page 12: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments
- 2 page 4: double include words in
viewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20130527
IETF LC End Date: 20130527
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
(Note most of them should be handled by the RFC Editor)
- "Requirement Language" section page 1 is
01.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20130420
IETF LC End Date: 20130514
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
- ToC page 2 and 9 page 6: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments
- 3 page 3: (more for the RFC Editor) the w
12.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20130323
IETF LC End Date: 20130330
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues:
There are some missing forward definitions for some abbrevs, i.e., the first
time an abbrev is used it should be explained too (*).
(*) "t
In your previous mail you wrote:
> I just wanted to check if you Francis feel that the issues have been
> adequately addressed. FWIW, I read the document with the respect to the
> major issues raised in your review at least, and thought that the -09
> was clear enough for me.
=> oops, it see
In your previous mail you wrote:
> I believe the RFC editor allows either English or American
> spellings so long as the document is consistent.
=> in fact I believe the RFC editor is chartered to allow any language...
Regards
francis.dup...@fdupont.fr
___
In your previous mail you wrote:
> > Minor issues:
=> BTW I received a side comment stating the document is too long
and should be split into 3 parts (maths, mechanisms, application).
Of course you may answer it is too late...
> > - section 2 is not enough accurate, for instance:
> > * th
07.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20130220
IETF LC End Date: 20130225
IESG Telechat date: 20130228
Summary: Not Ready
Major issues: the proposal fails to provide the expected security,
in particular it does nothing real against replay and the basic
function (anti-spoofing) relies
07.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20130208
IETF LC End Date: 20130226
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Almost Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues:
- section 2 is not enough accurate, for instance:
* the critical [k1:k2] notation is introduced after its first use, IMHO
it is the p
In your previous mail you wrote:
> > - ToC page 3 and 11 page 23: Acknowledgements -? Acknowledgments
>
> Well, both is possible. I changed it as suggested.
=> it is a standard US vs UK English...
> > - 1 page 4 and others: why Power State and not power state? I believe it
> > comes fro
10.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20130125
IETF LC End Date: 20120125
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
- ToC page 2: very inconsistent use of caps: I propose to put the first letter
of all words in upper cases.
05.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 201301xx
IETF LC End Date: 20130124
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Not Ready
Major issues: None but according to LC comments in the IETF mailing list
I believe a new version is very likely, so I propose to wait for it
and review only the new/next versi
mments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-sipclf-format-09.txt (applies to -11.txt too)
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20121220
IETF LC End Date: 20121217
IESG Telechat date: 20121220
Summary: Almost Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: the encoding of the BEB is inconsistent: one part
A new version was published some hours ago and already received comments
in the mailing list... so I decided to postpone the review of the last
version (or the next one? :-) and to downgrade the status from Ready
(there were only editiorial comments about 04 version (last is 07))
to On the right tr
client-id-06.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20121018
IETF LC End Date: 20121017
IESG Telechat date: 20121025
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None (even some questions below could be promoted to issues)
Nits/editorial comments:
There is no real justification: I had to re
ess-06.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20120920
IETF LC End Date: 20120925
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
In general the language itself could be improved even there is nothing
which is hard to understand (i.e.,
09.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20120828
IETF LC End Date: 20120815
IESG Telechat date: 20120830
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
- the topic is not very well introduced but it is a member (and not
the first one) of a group of docume
05.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20120810
IETF LC End Date: 20120813
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues:
- a very minor question: why in the search syntax is there no "NOT" operator,
only "AND" and "OR"?
- annoyin
go-imp-status-03.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20120704
IETF LC End Date: 20120711
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None (but I have a private question)
Nits/editorial comments:
- ToC page 2 and 2.1 (title) page 3: my (US) dictionary p
08.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20120704
IETF LC End Date: 20120702
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: there were some issues raised in the mailing list but
solved (?) in the last version (I reviewed an intermediate 07-08 version,
last is 09 today).
Minor issues
faq>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-implementation-04.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20120606
IETF LC End Date: 20120612
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor
-guard-implementation-04.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20120606
IETF LC End Date: 20120612
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments: I am currently at a conference so I have not the time
to type
the few comments now.
Thanks
franc
egs-10.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20120523
IETF LC End Date: 20120521
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
- ToC page 3: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments
- 4.2.5 page 12: missing "." in:
underst
In your previous mail you wrote:
> I would like to point out that feedback implosion actually can be
> seen as an implosion event. All the feedback traffic generated are
> concentrated at the target for the feedback. Thus causing an
> implosion of the feedback target under the "weight" of all
In your previous mail you wrote:
> [Qin]:I can understand it is more sensitive to use "explosion" than
> "implosion" in France.:-)
=> both words exist in both language with the same spelling and
meaning. Perhaps do you mean we are more attached to use the right
term in France (:-)?
> However m
In your previous mail you wrote:
> > - Abstract page 1: implosion -> explosion (things which can implode are
> rare :-)
>
> [Qin]: RFC4588 referenced by this document is using "implosion". So
> I think it should be fine to use the same term in this document.:-)
=> RFC 2887 too. IMHO it is
vtcore-feedback-supression-16.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20120323
IETF LC End Date: 20120326
IESG Telechat date: 20120412
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
These are about the -15 version updated to -16
- I-D name: supression -> su
chbind-14.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20120407
IETF LC End Date: 20120412
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
- Abstract page 1: NAS -> Network Access Server (BTW NAS has two meanings so
this is really
dhcpv6-reconfigure-rebind-09.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20120407
IETF LC End Date: 20120412
IESG Telechat date: 20120412
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
Note I know very well DHCPv6 so some details could have been too obvious f
I am sorry but I missed the new version. I'll read it before
sending the full review (anyway it will return in the processing
queue).
Regards
francis.dup...@fdupont.fr
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-a
edback-supression-rtp-15.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20120323
IETF LC End Date: 20120326
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major/Minor issues: None
Regards
francis.dup...@fdupont.fr
PS: I'll send the full review as soon as I have the time
tuning-05.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20120321
IETF LC End Date: 20120320
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Not Ready
Major issues: the wording of the document is too poor and can lead to
confusion. The use of RFC 2119 key words is bad, in particular for MAYs.
Regards
franc
In your previous mail you wrote:
> > Minor issues: not a real one (it was inherited from RFC 5775) but
> > in the security considerations there is nothing about IPsec/AH
> > (BTW people who didn't implement it didn't implement the transport
> > mode (for IPsec/ESP) too :-).
>
> Yes, this i
-flute-revised-13.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20120229
IETF LC End Date: 20120224
IESG Telechat date: 20120301
Summary: Almost Ready
Important note: due to last comments from the Last Call it seems
there will be a -14 version...
Major issues: None
Minor issues: not a real one (
03.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20120224
IETF LC End Date: 20120313
IESG Telechat date: known
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None but please check my comment about 8.2
Nits/editorial comments:
- ToC page 2 and 6.2 page 6: a 8-octet -> an 8-octet
- ToC page 2 and
tement-05.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20120224
IETF LC End Date: 20120306
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
- 1 page 3: P2P and CDN are not in the list of well known abbrevs
(IMHO for the first one becau
shared-transition-space-request-14.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20120208
IETF LC End Date: 20120216
IESG Telechat date: 20120216
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None (but with proposed changes agreed during the (last)
last call applied)
Nits/editorial comments:
- 1 page
00.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20120202
IETF LC End Date: 20120206
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
- no Acknowledgments?
- Author's Address page 8: please add the country (USA) in the postal address
In your previous mail you wrote:
> > Minor issues: not a real issue but I am not convinced there is a real
> > crypto reason to give up SHA-1. At the first view the attack against
> > SSHFP is a pre-image one, but:
> > - I leave the question to cryptographers of the security directorate
> >
ements-07.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20120106
IETF LC End Date: 20120113
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
- in the whole document: behaviour -> behavior and signalling -> signaling
(note the
04.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20111210
IETF LC End Date: 20120103
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: not a real issue but I am not convinced there is a real
crypto reason to give up SHA-1. At the first view the attack against
SSHFP is a pre
Oops, I missed to include two spelling errors: requsted (4 page 11)
and Procotol (in figures, multiple occurrences).
Regards
francis.dup...@fdupont.fr
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
ent-07.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 2024
IETF LC End Date: 2030
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None (at the exception of the space character isuse)
Nits/editorial comments:
First there is a real issue with the space character (a z
gility-08.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 2005
IETF LC End Date: 2007
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
- ToC page 2: please get a rule about caps and keep it (i.e.,
either put a cap only in the first w
01.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20111022
IETF LC End Date: 20111031
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
- Status page 1: This Internet-Draft will expire on 2 April 2011. -> 2012
(don't fix the draft but the to
02.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20111020
IETF LC End Date: 20111020
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
- ToC page 3 and 6 page 28: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments
- 1 page 4: usually the introduction g
02.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20111014
IETF LC End Date: 20110926
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments: I've seen some comments during the last call,
perhaps this is why the current version is 03 but I re
-space-request-03.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20110827
IETF LC End Date: 20110916
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Almost Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None (but need feed back from IANA)
Nits/editorial comments:
- the text uses both assignment and allocation terms, th
ssword-framework-01.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20110806
IETF LC End Date: 20110824
IESG Telechat date: known
Summary: Ready (but see below)
Major issues: there is one not about the document itself but about
the goal of the document. Unfortunately only the IESG can solve th
05.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20110804
IETF LC End Date: 20110811
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Almost Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: as I explained in the previous review, I deeply disagree
with the presentation of "ICMP Ping" for traceroute.
If tracerou
In your previous mail you wrote:
Since Traceroute is not a standard, but rather an application, it
has several implementations. Indeed, the UNIX implementation uses
UDP messages - this is also described in RFC 2151 (informational).
The windows implementation of Traceroute, on the oth
05.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20110723
IETF LC End Date: 20110720
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Not Ready
Major issues: 4.1 page 13 explains the use of ICMP in Traceroute: this
is plainly wrong: ICMP can't be used in this way because no ICMP error
can be triggered by a
12.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20110720
IETF LC End Date: 20110630
IESG Telechat date: known
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
- ToC page 4 and appendix F page 77: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments
- Authors' Addresses page 78: p
fec-03.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20110720
IETF LC End Date: 20110711
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments: None
Regards
francis.dup...@fdupont.fr
___
Gen-art mailing li
06.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20110710
IETF LC End Date: 20110721
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
- 5.2 page 10 (comment): the comment explaining the default value is
true for backward compatibility is a b
It seems there is a debate about the draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis-12.txt
document so I differ a bit the review (I am the assigned gen-art
reviewer) for the case a new version could be published soon...
If I am wrong and I should review it ASAP please signal it to me
at my other Email (less spam and
05.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20110527
IETF LC End Date: 20110512
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
- Toc page 2 and 9 page 67: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments
- 5 page 7: incoherent zip/country order
homing-without-ipv6nat-00.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20110618
IETF LC End Date: 20110623
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Not Ready
Major issues: the "DNS resolver" selection problem is not a DNS problem:
it comes from a common use of the DNS which is not in the DNS model
our-05.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 201106017
IETF LC End Date: 20110610
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready with nits
Major issues: None
Minor issues:
- more than 5 authors
- the American spelling for behaviour is behavior
- there is a problem with security consideration
viewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20110530
IETF LC End Date: 20110526
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready with nits
Major issues: None
Minor issues:
- the main issue is the name of the draft, fortunately it should be solved
with the publication as an RFC (the name doesn't sugge
forces-implementation-experience-02.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20110509
IETF LC End Date: 20110503
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
- Abstract page 1: forwarding -> Forwarding
- ToC page 2 (English ->
09.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20110323
IETF LC End Date: 20110324
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
- ToC page 2 and 10 page 16: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments
- 1 page 3: EE -> End Entity (EE)
ogging-recommendations-03.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20110305
IETF LC End Date: 20110311
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
- 1 page 3:
"... will diminish but this is a
years long perhaps decades l
08.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20110305
IETF LC End Date: 20110304
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
- in general there are some pagination issues but they should be
solved by the RFC Editor.
- ToC page 2 and 1
viewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20110224
IETF LC End Date: 20110221
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
- the document uses RFC{[wxyz]}4 as references in place of short
titles of references, this is not good because:
In your previous mail you wrote:
> Minor issues: I have an ASN.1 question related to implicit tagging:
> this can lead to encoding ambiguity with nested CHOICEs for instance,
> it is something which could be addressed in specs, is the extension
> mechanism an issue (i.e., the spec can
a new version of the draft.
Document: draft-ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues-03.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 2011-02-16
IETF LC End Date: 2011-02-01
IESG Telechat date: 2011-02-17
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
(PS: this means they
101 - 200 of 380 matches
Mail list logo
