Hi Dale,
Thank you for your review, I appreciate it. Please see inline.
At 6:32 PM -0800 2/17/17, Dale Worley wrote:
Reviewer: Dale Worley
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
I am almost done with my reply. I wasn't ignoring Dale, I've been
working on his comments.
At 11:28 PM + 2/21/17, Natasha Rooney wrote:
Hi Dale! Many thanks for these comments, as one of the SLIM chairs
I'll work on getting some answers to you or I'll request the author
or one of the
Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
Review result: Ready
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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new
Hi Christer,
Version -05 of the draft, which was just posted, is intended to resolve
your comments.
Thanks,
Donald
===
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
d3e...@gmail.com
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:47 AM,
I don't know why this email keeps getting cut off!
I am attaching my response in a text file.
Sigh. Thanks,
Nalini ElkinsInside Products, Inc.www.insidethestack.com(831) 659-8360
- Forwarded Message -
From: "nalini.elk...@insidethestack.com"
To:
Jouni,
Here is the thread for your second major comment:
Major comment #2 from you:
>2) The PDM option relation to actual "server" time is somewhat confusing and
>the 5-tuple does not allow me to detect the real relationship between the
>>server/application action that caused the generation
Francis,
Thanks for the careful review. Can you suggest a better title?
Ron
P.S. I have worked the other comments into the next version of the draft.
> -Original Message-
> From: Gen-art [mailto:gen-art-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Cerveny, Bill