[Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat Call review of draft-ietf-straw-sip-traceroute-02

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-straw-sip-

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-straw-sip-traceroute-02

Hi Jari, The comment about 3261 section 8.1.1.6 was related to the sentence: " Lower values should be used with caution and only in networks where topologies are known by the UA." If you and others see no objection I am ok with that too. Best Regards, Meral > -Original Message- > From

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-10

Hello Christer and Gen-ART thanks for the positive review! Please see inline for our responses Christer Holmberg schreef op 30-6-2014 12:07: Minor Issues: Section 3.12 talks about keep alive signaling. Q1: The sending of keep alives is a SHOULD, and there are no procedures on how to act if k

Re: [Gen-art] [rfc-i] Gen-art early review of draft-reschke-xml2rfc-09

Hi Elwyn, Julian, On 2014-07-09 20:37 Julian Reschke said the following: > Elwyn, > > thanks for the review. I'll get to most things later, but let me comment on: > > > s1, para 2: >> OLD >> It obsoletes the original version ("v1") [RFC2629], which contained >> the original language def

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art early review of draft-reschke-xml2rfc-09

Elwyn, thanks for the review. I'll get to most things later, but let me comment on: > s1, para 2: OLD It obsoletes the original version ("v1") [RFC2629], which contained the original language definition, and which was subsequently extended ("v2", [V1rev]). Furthermore, it discusses

[Gen-art] Gen-art early review of draft-reschke-xml2rfc-09

This is an early review of draft-reschke-xml2rfc-09.txt by Elwyn Davies as a gen-art reviewer as requested by Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor). Apologies for the tardy delivery. Front matter: I suggest that the material in Appendix D and the last sentence in para 2 of s1 is not appropriate

Re: [Gen-art] [xmpp] Gen-ART review for draft-ietf-xmpp-websocket-07

wfm Thanks and Regards, Dan > -Original Message- > From: Peter Saint-Andre [mailto:stpe...@stpeter.im] > Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 5:39 PM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Richard Barnes; Dave Cridland > Cc: draft-ietf-xmpp-websocket@tools.ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org; Jari > Arkko; x

Re: [Gen-art] [xmpp] Gen-ART review for draft-ietf-xmpp-websocket-07

On 7/9/14, 7:16 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: OK, I accept this, but in this case the text in the I-D should probably be worded slightly different: > > The WebSocket XMPP sub-protocol deviates from the standard method of > >constructing and using XML streams as defined in [RFC6120] by

Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-reqs-11.txt

thanks for the review, francis. i will hack as soon as the ads|chairs say it is time to do so. randy ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-reqs-11.txt

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-sidr-bgpsec-reqs-11.txt Revie

[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pce-questions-06

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-pce-questions-06 Reviewer: Al

Re: [Gen-art] [xmpp] Gen-ART review for draft-ietf-xmpp-websocket-07

OK, I accept this, but in this case the text in the I-D should probably be worded slightly different: > > The WebSocket XMPP sub-protocol deviates from the standard method of > >constructing and using XML streams as defined in [RFC6120] by > >adopting the message framing provided by We