Hi Francis,
Thanks for your review.
On 4/17/08 at 12:15 PM +0200, Francis Dupont wrote:
>This is the final review, I have only a new question about the idea
>to copy the whole ABNF in an appendix as it is done for ASN.1. [...]
>In conclusion I don't think this appendix is needed or even really
In your previous mail you wrote:
Francis:
Does -05 resolve your concerns?
Russ
=> yes, they are editorial comments... I change the summary to Ready.
Thansk
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 06:59 PM 2/12/2008, Francis Dupont wrote:
>
>Document: draft-vanelburg-sipping-served-u
Eric -
On May 7, 2008, at 1:26 PM, Eric Gray wrote:
> David,
>
> I agree with Spencer on the point of "system thoughts"
> verses "system states." This may appear to be a style issue,
> but it is actually simply a matter of trying to be as precise
> as the language allows. Who knows what
David,
I agree with Spencer on the point of "system thoughts"
verses "system states." This may appear to be a style issue,
but it is actually simply a matter of trying to be as precise
as the language allows. Who knows what a system "thinks"?
But it should be clear if a system is in an a
Spencer -
Thanks a ton for reading the doc and giving us your feedback. I have
a few replies inline.
On May 1, 2008, at 10:41 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
> reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
> http://ww
Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-12.txt
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 2008-05-07
IETF LC End Date: 2008-05-13
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard
RFC.
Comments: It looks pretty tight to me. I found a few places where I
would have
Hi Joel,
>
Minor Comments:
My personal opinion is that using "call" to describe the
sessions being established is probably not the best choice. In
many contexts which will need to reference this document, call
has a much more specific meaning. It is not cle
