Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-fecframe-simple-rs-04

Excellent. All agreed. /Miguel On 22/10/2012 16:58, Vincent Roca wrote: Dear Miguel, Thanks a lot for your comments. Document: draft-ietf-fecframe-simple-rs-04 Reviewer: Miguel Garcia Review Date: 2012-10-17 IETF LC End Date: 2012-10-22 Summary: The document is ready for publication as a s

[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-storm-iser-12

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-ietf-storm-iser-12 Reviewer: Pet

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-federated-fs-protocol-13

Chuck, I'll cheerfully settle for the status quo. Please ignore that comment. Thanks. -Peter On Oct 22, 2012, at 4:10 PM, Chuck Lever wrote: > > On Oct 21, 2012, at 11:35 PM, Peter Yee wrote: > >> Chuck, >>Ranges include the 0,255 that appears commonl

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-deployment-06

Hi David, Got it. We will capture all these comments in the next revision. Thanks again for reviewing the draft. Yiu On 10/22/12 4:45 PM, "Black, David" wrote: >Hi Yiu, > >> Since the BNG would verify the v6 packets sent by B4 and the AFTR would >> NAT the RFC1918 source address to the public

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-deployment-06

Hi Yiu, > Since the BNG would verify the v6 packets sent by B4 and the AFTR would > NAT the RFC1918 source address to the public address, I try to find a use > case where a theft could steal the service. Important clarification - I did not originally assert that there is a theft of service possib

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-federated-fs-protocol-13

On Oct 21, 2012, at 11:35 PM, Peter Yee wrote: > Chuck, > Ranges include the 0,255 that appears commonly in the document in > attribute definitions along with one case of -2147483648,2147483647. Hi Peter- Upon further review, I see the document uses "interval notation" when defining ran

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-deployment-06

Hi David, Since the BNG would verify the v6 packets sent by B4 and the AFTR would NAT the RFC1918 source address to the public address, I try to find a use case where a theft could steal the service. From the AFTR's perspective, the IPv4 address of the host behind B4 is irrelevant. Could you help

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-fecframe-simple-rs-04

Dear Miguel, Thanks a lot for your comments. > Document: draft-ietf-fecframe-simple-rs-04 > Reviewer: Miguel Garcia > Review Date: 2012-10-17 > IETF LC End Date: 2012-10-22 > > Summary: The document is ready for publication as a standards track RFC, but > has some Nits that should be addressed

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-dhc-client-id-06.txt

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-dhc-client-id