[Gen-art] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 2011-10-20

2011-10-20 Thread A. Jean Mahoney
Hi all, Here's the link to the new LC assignments: http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/dav/genart/reviewers-111020-lc.html The assignments are captured in the spreadsheets: http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/dav/genart/gen-art.html http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/dav/genart/gen-art-by-reviewer.html The standard temp

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-eai-rfc5335bis-12

2011-10-20 Thread Abel
Yes, it's a typo, next version will update it. Abel -原始郵件- From: Pete Resnick Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 9:19 PM To: Miguel A. Garcia Cc: Russ Housley ; abely...@twnic.net.tw ; shawn.ste...@microsoft.com ; ned+i...@mrochek.com ; General Area Review Team ; i...@ietf.org Subject:

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-eai-rfc5335bis-12

2011-10-20 Thread Pete Resnick
On 10/20/11 6:59 AM, Miguel A. Garcia wrote: But even if it is a typo, the text makes no sense. It says: Section 2.1.1 of [RFC5322] limits lines to 998 characters and recommends that the lines be restricted to only 78 characters. This specification changes the former limit to 988 octet

[Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat Review of draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname-24

2011-10-20 Thread Ben Campbell
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc267

[Gen-art] Gen-ART review for draft-irtf-hiprg-dht-04

2011-10-20 Thread kathleen.moriarty
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at . Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-irtf-hiprg-dht-04 Reviewer: Kathle

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-eai-rfc5335bis-12

2011-10-20 Thread Miguel A. Garcia
But even if it is a typo, the text makes no sense. It says: Section 2.1.1 of [RFC5322] limits lines to 998 characters and recommends that the lines be restricted to only 78 characters. This specification changes the former limit to 988 octets. So, if the limit is still 998, then there

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-eai-rfc5335bis-12

2011-10-20 Thread Pete Resnick
Your initial suspicion was correct: It is a typo. Impressive how many folks can miss something so simple. I'll put it in a note to the RFC Editor. pr On 10/20/11 5:48 AM, Miguel A. Garcia wrote: Yes, I interpret the same. But having found no motivation for the reduction of 10 octets, I just w

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-eai-rfc5335bis-12

2011-10-20 Thread Miguel A. Garcia
Yes, I interpret the same. But having found no motivation for the reduction of 10 octets, I just wanted to verify that there is no typo in the figure. A bit of motivation for the "988" would help too. /Miguel On 20/10/2011 14:42, Russ Housley wrote: Miguel: I interpret this text to mean tha

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-eai-rfc5335bis-12

2011-10-20 Thread Russ Housley
Miguel: I interpret this text to mean that the old limit was 998 octets and that the new limit is 988 octets. Russ On Oct 18, 2011, at 4:50 PM, Miguel A. Garcia wrote: > Nits/editorial comments: > > - Section 3.4 reads: > > Section 2.1.1 of [RFC5322] limits lines to 998 characters and >