Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility-03

Hi Pete, Thanks for the review. Please see inline From: Pete Resnick [mailto:presn...@qti.qualcomm.com] Sent: Monday, August 8, 2016 10:43 PM To: General Area Review Team ; draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility@ietf.org; t...@ietf.org; IETF Subject: Gen-ART LC

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric-05

Hi, That's all good. With the clarifcations, I think the "Updates" is OK too. I still don't think you need the pre-2008 disclaimer, but that's a nit. Thanks Brian On 09/08/2016 09:27, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang wrote: > Please see -07 version that should address the issues raised by Brian

Re: [Gen-art] IETF Last Call Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis-01

Dale - Attached please find an updated version and diffs from previous. Please let me know if this adequately addresses your comments. Les > -Original Message- > From: Dale R. Worley [mailto:wor...@ariadne.com] > Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 8:26 AM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) >

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric-05

Hi Acee, Thanks, just a few points in line: On 09/08/2016 05:47, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > Hi Brian, > > Thanks much for the thorough review. Jeffrey and I discussed your comments > this morning. See responses to your major/minor comments below. We will > incorporate all the nits. > > On

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-clue-datachannel-13

Hi, I've created a new version of the draft, based on Brian's comments. It's not yet submitted, but can be found at GitHub: https://github.com/cdh4u/draft-clue-datachannel/blob/master/draft-ietf-clue-datachannel.txt The only change is to add a reference to the club protocol draft in the

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-24

Elwyn, I went ahead and published an update that incorporates your feedback. https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-25 Note that I chose not to include the definition of communication session in the

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric-05

Hi Brian, Thanks much for the thorough review. Jeffrey and I discussed your comments this morning. See responses to your major/minor comments below. We will incorporate all the nits. On 8/6/16, 9:38 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" wrote: >I am the assigned Gen-ART

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-isis-remaining-lifetime-02

That should work :) Thanks! Regards, Christer From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com] Sent: 08 August 2016 20:39 To: Christer Holmberg ; gen-art@ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-remaining-lifetime@tools.ietf.org Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-isis-remaining-lifetime-02

Christer - I will place a reference in the Introduction - something like: "[ISO10589} defines the format of a Link State PDU (LSP) which includes a Remaining Lifetime field..." Hope that will suffice. Les From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:christer.holmb...@ericsson.com] Sent: Monday,

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-isis-remaining-lifetime-02

Hi, >Thanx for your review. > >ISO 10589 is the base specification for IS-IS and there is a reference to it >in the document. >This is where you will find details about Link State PDUs. > >I would be reluctant to include any sort of summary description of an LSP in >this document out of fear

[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility-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

[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes-13

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

Re: [Gen-art] Combined Gen-art and secdir LC review: draft-ietf-manet-smc-sec-threats-05

Resending (to a subset of the original distro) correcting a typo in the draft name to make this easier to search for later. RjS On 8/8/16 10:17 AM, Robert Sparks wrote: I am the assigned Gen-ART and secdir reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-isis-remaining-lifetime-02

+1 to what Les thinks … --- tony > spake: Christer – Thanx for your review. ISO 10589 is the base specification for IS-IS and there is a reference to it in the document. This is where you will find details about Link State PDUs. I would be

Re: [Gen-art] IETF Last Call Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis-01

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" writes: > Thanx for your detailed review. I have elected to copy the WG on my > reply as you also sent a copy of your review to the WG. I'm not sure if it is formally specified, but it seems to me that a Gen-Art review really should be copied to the

[Gen-art] Combined Gen-art and secdir LC review: draft-ietf-manet-smc-sec-threats-05

I am the assigned Gen-ART and secdir reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. The secdir does the same for the security area directors. Please treat these comments just like any other last call

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-isis-remaining-lifetime-02

Christer - Thanx for your review. ISO 10589 is the base specification for IS-IS and there is a reference to it in the document. This is where you will find details about Link State PDUs. I would be reluctant to include any sort of summary description of an LSP in this document out of fear

Re: [Gen-art] IETF Last Call Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis-01

Dale - Thanx for your detailed review. I have elected to copy the WG on my reply as you also sent a copy of your review to the WG. Overall, while I either agree with or have no objection to many of your comments, most of them could be applied to RFC 4971 itself. When generating the bis