Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall-21

Hi, Thank you. Best, Meral > -Original Message- > From: Randall Gellens [mailto:rg+i...@randy.pensive.org] > Sent: Friday, January 06, 2017 4:07 AM > To: Meral Shirazipour ; draft-ietf-ecrit- > ecall@tools.ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org > Subject: Re:

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-nvo3-use-case-15

Hi Ralph, Thank you for the review. We will have all acronyms expansion in next version and add a reference for DC services. Regards, Lucy -Original Message- From: Gen-art [mailto:gen-art-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ralph Droms Sent: Friday, January 06, 2017 7:14 AM To:

Re: [Gen-art] [6tisch] Review of draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-17

Kris; I totally agree with your explanation, but perhaps a slight editorial change? "This specification assumes the existence of one protocol identifier, P1, and one cryptographic key K2. P1’s purpose is to provide message integrity, it is not to provide security.” Pat On 5, Jan2017, at

[Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-nvo3-use-case-15

Reviewer: Ralph Droms Review result: Ready with Nits 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

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash-20

At 9:53 PM +0200 1/5/17, Dan Romascanu wrote: Hi, Thanks for the quick answer and for addressing my comments. On respect to: There is no conflict, as the eCall document applies to regions that adhere to the E.U. eCall system, and this document applies to other regions. I added the

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall-21

Hi Meral, Thank you for your review, I appreciate it. Please see inline. At 12:11 AM + 1/6/17, 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.