Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review result: Ready with Issues
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
Reviewer: Linda Dunbar
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 version
Robert:
> Reviewer: Robert Sparks
> Review result: Ready with Issues
>
> 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
Pete, thanks for your review. Fred, thanks for updating the text. I entered a
DISCUSS ballot to chat about Section 6.1.
Alissa
> On Jul 6, 2019, at 1:11 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
>
> On 5 Jul 2019, at 10:00, Fred Baker wrote:
>
>>> In Section 2.1 and 2.2, Instead of "set to one" and "set to
Stewart and Alissa,
I have reviewed Chister's response for this issue and re-read RFC4091/4092,
and now agree with Christer: We can remove the section about ANAT and
references to RFC4091/4092.
Best Regards,
_
Roman Shpount
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 12:52 PM Roman Shpount wrote:
>
Ines, thanks for your review. I entered a DISCUSS ballot to get the figure
fixed in Section 4.2.
Alissa
> On Jul 30, 2019, at 8:11 AM, Ines Robles via Datatracker
> wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Ines Robles
> Review result: Ready with Issues
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft.
Okay.
Linda
-Original Message-
From: Gen-art On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2019 12:39 PM
To: Linda Dunbar
Cc: draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ed25519-ed448@ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org;
cur...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of
Stewart, thanks for your review. I entered a No Objection ballot. Comments
below.
> On Jun 26, 2019, at 5:57 AM, Stewart Bryant via Datatracker
> wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
>
Linda, thanks for your review. The IANA registries into which this document
makes new registrations follow the IETF Review policy, which requires an RFC
published in the IETF stream. Arguably it could have been informational but I
don’t see a down side to publishing it on the standards track.
Paul, thanks for your review. Randy, thanks for the new text. I entered a No
Objection ballot.
Alissa
> On Jul 4, 2019, at 5:12 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
2) NIT:
Reading the last two security considerations in section 8 leaves me
concerned. I was expecting to see some
Stewart and Alissa,
Thank you for the review. The references for RFC 4091 and RFC 4092 are
intentional and describe relationship with previous obsoleted
implementations. There are still deployed implementations of RFC 4091 and
RFC 4092 and ice-sip-sdp states that ICE implementations should be
Stewart, thanks for your review. I entered a DISCUSS ballot to check on the
obsoleted references to RFC 4091 and RFC 4092.
Alissa
> On Jun 17, 2019, at 6:05 AM, Stewart Bryant via Datatracker
> wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> I am the assigned
Hi Stewart,
Thanks for the prompt review. We will wait for a few more reviews and publish
a fixed document.
Many thanks,
Rick
> -Original Message-
> From: manet [mailto:manet-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
> via Datatracker
> Sent: 06 August 2019 10:04
> To:
Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
