Re: [Gen-art] [aqm] Gen-ART LC review: draft-ietf-aqm-fq-implementation-02

You missed the Zhang reference in 2.2.5. Otherwise fine. pr On 22 Oct 2015, at 11:45, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: See attached. Sorry for the oversight. On Oct 22, 2015, at 12:09 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: All of the changes you made look fine. You changed the

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

Hi Vijay, Thank you for the review. Please see our replies inline starting with [Rachel]. BR, Rachel > > Document: draft-ietf-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol-10 > Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani > Review Date: Oct-15-2015 > IETF LC End Date: Not known > IESG Telechat date: Oct-15-2015 > > This

Re: [Gen-art] review: draft-housley-sow-author-statistics-00

Thanks for your review, Joel. And thanks Russ for the added text. jari On 27 Aug 2015, at 22:53, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG

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

Rachel: Thank you for attending to all my comments. I did not see the resolution to this one, though: - S1.1: The taxonomy of a peer into a leecher or a seeder appears to be absolute. In real swarms (BitTorrent), a peer trades chunks with other peers, so it is a leecher but also a

Re: [Gen-art] [aqm] Gen-ART LC review: draft-ietf-aqm-fq-implementation-02

Thanks - LGTM. Alia On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > > On Oct 22, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Pete Resnick > wrote: > > You missed the Zhang reference in 2.2.5. Otherwise fine. > > > > > > >

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02

Jari, (I removed some of the the cc:s for this reply). Thanks, that’s exactly the case, the IPR was announced in November 2012, prior to the PWE3 WG adoption poll. I think you just uncovered a tools page bug. Looking at the datatracker, the replaced-by information is correct through the draft’s

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-netconf-call-home-11.txt

Hi Jari, Suresh, Thank you for your suggestion. How about this, after each of the four uses of “must immediately start” (in C3, C8, S3, and S6), we add the sentence: It is unnecessary for the [client/server] to wait for the remote peer to initiate the first. Would this be helpful?

Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-mac-wd

Himanshu - I have one clarification to my review: I should have written "Is there a reason this document does not use RFC 2119 terminology throughout?" ...and even that is likely an unfair assessment, as RFC 2119 language more or less everywhere needed for clarity. My apologies for the

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-netconf-call-home-11.txt

Hi Kent, On 10/22/2015 06:03 PM, Kent Watsen wrote: > [+barry] > > I apologize to reply to myself, but I would be remiss to not mention that > Barry Leiba had a related COMMENT on the "must immediately start” text. His > suggestion is to remove the words “MUST immediately” (i.e. Just have >

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review for draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-03

Hi Dan, I'll wade-in as Document Shepherd and begin to answer your questions, Al 1. It is not clear to me how backwards compatibility is ensured. How do implementations make distinction between OWAMP or TWAMP packets that use timestamp update and Checksum Complement rather than timestamp

[Gen-art] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 2015-10-22

Hi all, The following reviewers have assignments: Reviewer LC end Draft - Robert Sparks 2015-10-30 draft-ietf-isis-route-preference-02 Roni Even 2015-11-02 draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-04 Suresh

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-netconf-call-home-11.txt

[+barry] I apologize to reply to myself, but I would be remiss to not mention that Barry Leiba had a related COMMENT on the "must immediately start” text. His suggestion is to remove the words “MUST immediately” (i.e. Just have “start”). As he writes: "What *else* might the client [server]

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

Hi Vijay, Sorry for omitting this one. It is absolute: A leecher is a peer that is downloading chunks from other peers, but it does not have the complete content. And of course, it is uploading while downloading. A seeder has complete copies of the content. So it is only uploading. A leecher

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat Call review of draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-11

Thanks again, Meral. jari On 17 Oct 2015, at 00:10, Meral Shirazipour wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review > Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the > IETF Chair. > Please

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02

Robert: Many thanks for your detailed review. I will send some technical comments on this topic but wanted to answer you and Andrew on the IPR issue separately: Robert wrote: > That happens sometimes, but it's much better to have a real indication > that the group considered the disclosure and

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC/Telechat review of draft-ietf-pals-ms-pw-protection-03

Thanks for your review, Peter. Jari signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-mac-wd

Ralph, many thanks for your in-depth review! And thanks for being on the Gen-ART team. And than you Himanshu for suggesting ways to deal with the issues. I agree with Ralph that there are points where this document could be clearer. The one case that I felt personally strongly about was the

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02

> Yes, the tools servers don't currently follow replaces the same way the > datatracker does. > Henrik is aware of it, and is working to make them say the same thing. Cool, thanks! Jari signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-netconf-call-home-11.txt

Thanks for the explanation, Kent, and for the review, Suresh. Can the explanation be added to the document for other people who might have the same question. Jari On 21 Oct 2015, at 19:37, Kent Watsen wrote: > > Hi Suresh, > > Thank you for your review. > > To answer

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-ippm-type-p-monitor-02.txt

Thanks for the review and responses. Jari On 22 Oct 2015, at 05:03, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > Hi Greg, > Thanks for addressing my comments quickly. Your proposed changes sound > good to me. > > Cheers > Suresh > > On 10/21/2015 04:38 PM, Gregory Mirsky wrote:

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-lisp-impact-04

Thanks for the edits & review. Jari On 17 Oct 2015, at 20:50, Luigi Iannone wrote: > Hi Russ, > > thanks for the review. > Inline you can find our propose changes in order to fix the issues. > > Let us know if such proposed changes are sufficient. > > ciao > > Luigi > > >

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat Call review of draft-ietf-6man-predictable-fragment-id-10

Thanks again Meral for the review. Jari On 17 Oct 2015, at 03:38, Meral Shirazipour wrote: > Hi, > Thank you. > > Best, > Meral > >> -Original Message- >> From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fg...@si6networks.com] >> Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 3:20 PM >>

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02

On 10/22/15 5:15 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: But in this case I noticed that http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe/ shows 1 IPR whereas https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02 does not. But

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat Call review of draft-ietf-pcp-port-set-11

Thanks again, Meral. Jari On 16 Oct 2015, at 00:27, Meral Shirazipour wrote: > 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

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-trill-rfc7180bis-06

Meral, many thanks for the review. Donald, many thanks for the changes. I have balloted no-obj. On re: conflicts, I understood the sentence as a usual if-all-else-fails clause of specifying which document has precedence in case some conflicts are discovered later. I think that’s fine. Is this

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review: draft-ietf-aqm-fq-implementation-02

Thanks for the review, Pete. Authors, did you have any responses to the points that Pete is making? FWIW, I think that the algorithm/queue empty and WRR issues need a fix, and I also agree with Pete on RFC/author name reference issue, Jari signature.asc Description: Message signed with

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02

Robert, Jimmy, Thanks for the review & discussion. From my perspective some of the things that Robert raises are very valid questions. The particular item that I’m perhaps most interested in is the text in Section 3.2, which seems like explaining what happens in an example, but it also uses

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits-06 (resend)

Thanks for your review! On 06 Oct 2015, at 18:00, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review > Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the > IETF Chair. Please treat these comments

Re: [Gen-art] [Gen-Art] Review: draft-ietf-ace-usecases-07

Thanks for this, Joel. I agree with your suggestion. Jari On 16 Oct 2015, at 06:55, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review for draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-03

Hi Al, Thanks for the explanation, this helped me a lot. 1. It may be useful to insert a paragraph that provides this explanation 2. Makes sense - no change needed. Regards, Dan From: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) [mailto:acmor...@att.com] Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 1:32 AM To:

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-trill-rfc7180bis-06

Hi Jari, On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: > Meral, many thanks for the review. Donald, many thanks for the changes. > > I have balloted no-obj. > > On re: conflicts, I understood the sentence as a usual if-all-else-fails > clause of specifying which

Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-mac-wd

Can not see your message content. PLEASE send without MIME... Thanks, Himanshu From: Ralph Droms (rdroms) [mailto:rdr...@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 11:20 AM To: Shah, Himanshu Cc: A. Jean Mahoney; General Area Review Team; draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-mac-wd@ietf.org; The IESG

Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-mac-wd

The archived message in the gen-art list is available here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg12413.html > On Oct 22, 2015, at 11:22 AM 10/22/15, Shah, Himanshu wrote: > > Can not see your message content. > PLEASE send without MIME… > > Thanks, >

Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-mac-wd

Still no luck. No message content. Andy Malis – is it possible for you to send Ralph’s email? Thanks, Himanshu From: Ralph Droms (rdroms) [mailto:rdr...@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 11:27 AM To: Shah, Himanshu Cc: A. Jean Mahoney; General Area Review Team;

Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-mac-wd

(originally sent 10/16) Hi, Himanshu - responses in line... > On Oct 15, 2015, at 7:44 PM 10/15/15, Shah, Himanshu wrote: > > Hi Ralph - > Thanks for your thorough review. > > Let me first address your major concern. > > As you point out, this draft builds on existing

Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-mac-wd

Aahh! Finally got it with content!!.. Let me go through your email.. Thanks, Himanshu -Original Message- From: Ralph Droms (rdroms) [mailto:rdr...@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 11:29 AM To: Shah, Himanshu Cc: A. Jean Mahoney; General Area Review Team;

Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-mac-wd

(originally sent 10/16; second try) Hi, Himanshu - responses in line... > On Oct 15, 2015, at 7:44 PM 10/15/15, Shah, Himanshu wrote: > > Hi Ralph - > Thanks for your thorough review. > > Let me first address your major concern. > > As you point out, this draft builds on

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review: draft-ietf-aqm-fq-implementation-02

All of the changes you made look fine. You changed the reference to Brisoce, but didn't change McKenny, Shreedar, or Zhang. I still think you should. You missed the nit in section 4, paragraph 2 (s/a mark/mark). There's still no explanation of why this is likely to be a useful document in

[Gen-art] Gen-ART review for draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-03

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <