in the table (Table 1) in section 3.6
NEW:
Though listed as optional in Table 1 of Section 3.6
That's an annoying artifact of xml2rfc. I'll have a go at fixing it.
Thanks again,
pr
--
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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 treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review result: On the Right Track
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
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
[Sorry; resending from the proper From address.]
Oh, one other bit: In the directive at the top of the XML, you
should add seriesNo="39" as an indicator to the RFC Editor to make sure
that this document is added to BCP 39, not create a new BCP number.
On 15 Feb 2022, at 14:02, Pe
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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
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
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review result: Ready
Got this review late; apologies for finishing it a few days later that it
should.
As usual for YANG reviews (not my forte), I simply looked for data items being
compared in i18n-unsafe ways or other misuses. Nothing obvious. Seems ready to
go as far
ived, ..."
Perfect.
All of the others look fine. Thanks again for the quick reply.
Cheers,
pr
--
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
On 24 Apr 2021, at 17:38, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Saturday, April 24, 2021 14:33 -0700 Pete Resnick via
Datatracker wrote:
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
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
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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
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
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
cument has "Intend status: Informational". The
two should be made to agree.
- Bernie
On Sep 9, 2020, at 8:45 PM, Fernando Gont
wrote:
Hello, Pete,
Thanks a lot for your feedback! In-line....
On 9/9/20 16:39, Pete Resnick via Datatracker wrote:
[]
Major issues: None
draft-ietf-v
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
On 30 Jun 2020, at 7:24, Stewart Bryant wrote:
On 29 Jun 2020, at 18:30, Pete Resnick via Datatracker
wrote:
Minor issues:
It is not clear to me why this is being sent for Informational
instead of
Proposed Standard. The shepherd's writeup does not justify it, and in
fact the
writeup
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
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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 treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review result: Not 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 treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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 treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
n-NENA-i3 client or server can use the tag or not as they
wish.
--Randall
On 8 Mar 2020, at 12:59, Pete Resnick wrote:
Hi Randy,
Section 3 of the document defines the operations that one must
perform in order to use the tag. It explains how to go beyond what
5222 provides by defining
a new tag, not defining a new protocol.
--Randall
On 7 Mar 2020, at 8:52, Pete Resnick via Datatracker wrote:
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review result: Not Ready
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
b
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review result: Not 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 treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review result: On the Right Track
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
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
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review result: On the Right Track
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
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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
ublication.]
I would suggest the authors to remove the phrase "(Early allocation by
IANA)" in the document now as the referenced draft is in RFC-EDITOR
queue and the early allocation tag is removed in the IANA page -
https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-objects
That's fi
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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 treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Thanks for the changes. Followup comments inline below; trimming the
ones that already look fine.
On 22 Aug 2019, at 8:51, dominique.bart...@orange.com wrote:
Le 07/08/19 05:13, « Pete Resnick via Datatracker »
a
écrit :
Section 7.1 or 7.3:
[DB] your proposed rephrasing is not quite
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 comments that could actually have an
impact. Agree that they don't have teeth.
Yep, what I figured.
Would you kindly review the attached diff and comment on the changes?
I'll wait for your comments before uploading.
Yep, looks pretty good to me. Thanks.
pr
--
Pete Resnick http://www.epist
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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
oming-11#section-8.3
Fair enough.
Thanks again for the updates. As the boilerplate for the review says,
wait for instructions from your AD for further guidance, particularly in
order to address Alissa's DISCUSS.
pr
--
Pete Resnick http://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous
solutions.
Is that second sentence right? If you are giving a general class of
solutions,
that seems agnostic to the particular solution. Just a bit confusing.
Updated.
A host SHOULD be able respond dynamically...
Do you mean "is expected to" instead of "SH
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review result: Almost 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 treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
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
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
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting
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
think it's highly unlikely that she (or anyone on
the IESG) would balk at this point in history.
Thanks for your (and Peter's) quick replies to these reviews.
pr
--
Pete Resnick http://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting
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
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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
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
or is
fine, and they'll be able to make it all consistent across the sections.
And they're very good about avoiding breaking meanings when they do
their edits.
Thanks again for your valuable review input, and please let me know if
the above resolutions make sense to you.
Best,
Ethan (as edi
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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
that's in my editorial comments in the review.
Thanks to you and others for the explanations.
pr
On 9/24/2018 11:43 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
Hi Lou,
I've got a preliminary question about draft-ietf-detnet-use-cases
that
isn't answered in the intro to the document or in your shepherd
writeup
Hi Lou,
I've got a preliminary question about draft-ietf-detnet-use-cases that
isn't answered in the intro to the document or in your shepherd writeup.
I've Cced the WG just to make sure they're in the loop, and I've Cced
the gen-art list and the responsible AD just in case Deborah or any of
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review result: Almost 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 treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Hi Mahesh,
Trimming a bit:
On 20 Jun 2018, at 0:36, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote:
3.1 - s/The test session name that MUST be identical/The test session
name,
which MUST be identical (Unless you mean something really weird that
I don't
think you mean. If you don't see the difference, then trust
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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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
Thanks Mahesh. Looks great.
pr
On 23 Apr 2018, at 11:54, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote:
Tom/Pete,
We believe this version of the draft addresses your comments.
Thanks.
On Apr 23, 2018, at 9:48 AM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
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
BOF" can be referred by RFC 6771 (also
include in
Informational References)
5. section 3.2.3 - unless there is a special reason I suggest to
delete the
double-dashes before and after -- or at an acceptable --
6. Section 4.6:
s/The meetings budget is managed by the IAD/The IAD manages t
/
organization /
path /
summary /
supersedes /
user-agent /
xref
optional-field /=newsfields
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qu
from having useful
information. :-) Yes, this document registers it, but really what the
implementer is going to need is this document *and* 5640, so I see no
particular harm in putting both references in the registry, and it's
probably useful.
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.
On 21 Aug 2017, at 10:58, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
Hi Pete,
On 8/21/17, 11:40 AM, "Pete Resnick" <presn...@qti.qualcomm.com>
wrote:
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review result: Almost Ready
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review result: Almost 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 treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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 treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
et the full scrutiny of a standards-track document.
Regards,
Ruediger
Cheers,
pr
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Pete Resnick [mailto:presn...@qti.qualcomm.com]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 28. Juni 2017 20:31
An: gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: spr...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org;
draft-ietf-spring-o
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review result: Not 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 treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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
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
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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 treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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
, then that's a MUST.
As I said before, I'm someone who doesn't like putting in MUSTs and
SHOULDs (I've even written protocol documents where they never appear),
but if you really mean "required" or "required unless you know what
you're doing", I see no harm in put
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting
not to say anything on that.
Thanks
Daniele
From: Pete Resnick [mailto:presn...@qti.qualcomm.com]
Sent: martedì 7 febbraio 2017 18:05
To: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccare...@ericsson.com>
Cc: Jari Arkko <jari.ar...@piuha.net>; gen-art@ietf.org;
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext@
0010? If so, why is that?
For any particular administrative purpose it could be possible to set
it to a different value, but that shouldn’t be done.
Well, it doesn't say that shouldn't be done, but it probably doesn't
need to say anything about local configurations.
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www
LSP,
but merely as the way to express the supported frequency range."
I'm ok with dropping the sentence.
I think dropping the sentence would make the most sense.
Thank you
Daniele
Thanks for considering my suggested changes.
pr
-Original Message-
From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari
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
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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
://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Document: draft-ietf-lisp-crypto-09
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review Date: 2016-10-12
IETF LC End Date: 2016-10-04
IESG Telechat date: 2016-10-13
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Experimental RFC
Though this is not an area of expertise for me
Request.
If that's not what you meant, you should probably clarify.
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
7 Sep 2016, at 2:24, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hi Pete,
On 06/09/16 16:55, Pete Resnick wrote:
However, I believe Suresh was incorrect in suggesting the first
"MUST",
and it should be removed. There is no harm being prevented here. "If
a
client wants X, it MUST send Y" is abs
use
the refresh request in 5766." Do I have that right? If so, the paragraph
could use a rewrite; it's not the MUST and the MUST NOT that are the
problem.
Anyway, I
am not wedded to keeping the MUST as long as the MUST NOT prevents the
sending of a packet that is certain to be rejected.
at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility-03
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review Date: 2016-09-06
IESG Telechat date: 2016-09-01
Summary: This is an odd post-telechat review, but I think the draft has
gone from "Ready" to &quo
te it), I would
suggest simply changing it to something like: "Note: There is no
guarantee that the fields in the ticket are going to be decodable to a
client, and therefore attempts by a client to examine the ticket are
unlikely to be useful."
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/
ttp://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility-03
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review Date: 2016-08-08
IETF LC End Date: 2016-08-11
IESG Telechat date: Unknown
Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has some
minor issues and nits that
done making the changes,
should I upload a new version using the IETF submission tool
or should I simply email the .txt or .xml only to you/Gen-art team?
Thanks.
Sriram
-Original Message-
From: Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 6:02 PM
To: Pete Resnick <pr
ttp://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator-04
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review Date: 2016-04-18
IETF LC End Date: 2016-04-26
IESG Telechat date: 2016-05-05
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC.
Major issues: None
more comfortable.
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
and how
it can be prevented in the future.
Please, leave it short, with either the short correction at the top from
either Brian or myself.
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478_
ttp://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition-04
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review Date: 2016-03-21
IETF LC End Date: 2016-03-28
Summary: This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described
in this review.
Major issues:
None.
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
<presn...@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
All of the changes you made look fine.
You c
, Pete Resnick <presn...@qti.qualcomm.com>
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 just like
any other last call comments.
Fo
ttp://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-aqm-fq-implementation-02
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review Date: 2015-10-6
IETF LC End Date: 2015-10-15
IESG Telechat date: 2015-10-22
Summary:
This document is in fine shape and is generally ready for publication
(caveat some
On 12/5/14 4:38 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
Hi, David. One note on your review:
idnits didn't like the reference to RFC 20 for ASCII:
** Downref: Normative reference to an Unknown state RFC: RFC 20
RFC 5234 (ABNF) uses this, which looks like a better reference:
[US-ASCII] American
On 12/2/14 11:20 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
When you suggest saying more, are you suggesting saying more in the
document?
I mostly meant the writeup - I expect there will be IESG folks with the same
questions I had.
I can do that, sure.
This document updates:
...
On 3/20/14 5:20 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
(This may be more than a nit): In the ABNF in section 3.6.5, where is
the implementer supposed to go to find the definition of 'zone'? (Or
the other production names?) I think _this_ chunk of ABNF (as opposed
to that compiled in the appendix) is intended
On 10/11/13 11:27 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
Major issues:
Section 4 says: ... members of any given working group ... Working
groups do not have members; they have participants. Please reword to
avoid confusion on this point.
Done.
Minor issues:
Section 4 says that humming should be the
As per a suggestion in another thread: Would you also say that this
draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard? This is more
architectural overview than protocol per-se, but I do think it is
necessary to the understanding of the other protocol documents (hence it
is a normative
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
