Thanks all. I have not yet reviewed -26 myself, but a quick perusal
makes me think they have been addressed. As for my comments on the
registries:
Defining the review level within the table did throw me off. Looking at
it again, I think it would be helpful to separate out the registry
Excellent - thanks!
Jari
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
Gen-art] Last Call Review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-25
>
> Matt,
>
> Many thanks for this.
>
> Authors, did you have any responses on Matt's comments?
>
> Also, Matt, I had one question for you:
>
> >
> > * The IANA registries this document establishes are not def
Hi Matt,
Thanks for the review, some (slightly late) comments inline...
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Miller [mailto:mamil...@cisco.com]
> Sent: 28 November 2016 16:58
> To: gen-art@ietf.org; draft-ietf-manet-dlep@ietf.org
> Cc: i...@ietf.org
> Subject: Last Call Review of
Matt,
Many thanks for this.
Authors, did you have any responses on Matt’s comments?
Also, Matt, I had one question for you:
>
> * The IANA registries this document establishes are not defined.
> One can deduce the required information and its format, but there
> is no guidance on review
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
<
