Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-05

Hi Jari, Thank you for the support, and thanks to Roni as well as all the other kind reviewers of this document. We would update a new version of the document soon and cover the points raised during last call. Thanks and best regards, Tianxiang 2017-02-16 20:04 GMT+08:00 Jari Arkko

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04

On 2/16/2017 1:29 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote: > > > On 16/02/2017 18:49, Joe Touch wrote: >> >> On 2/16/2017 7:59 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote: >>> >>> On 14/02/2017 23:00, Templin, Fred L wrote: Unless there is operational assurance of some size X>1280, however, tunnels have to use

Re: [Gen-art] [Pce] Review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-18

So it is intentional that this draft prohibits that behavior (PCE driven establishment)? Yours, Joel On 2/16/17 11:35 PM, Dhruv Dhody wrote: Hi Joel, Regarding your comment - Is the intention to prohibit the driving of LSP creation from the PCE? This capability is described in -

[Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-18

Reviewer: Joel Halpern 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

Re: [Gen-art] [Pce] Review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-18

Hi Joel, Regarding your comment - > Is the intention to prohibit the driving > of LSP creation from the PCE? This capability is described in - https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-07 (document expired recently, authors should refresh it) Thanks, Dhruv >

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-bmwg-virtual-net-04

Hi Joel, Thanks for your review, please see below. Al > -Original Message- > From: Joel Halpern [mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com] > Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2017 4:44 PM > To: gen-art@ietf.org > Cc: draft-ietf-bmwg-virtual-net@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; > b...@ietf.org > Subject: Review

Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-nd-04.txt

Thanks for the detailed review, Francis! Authors — did you make a note of the comments? Did not see a response… Jari On 24 Jan 2017, at 18:33, Francis Dupont wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-23

Brian, Christer: 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

Re: [Gen-art] [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-mib-11

All: thanks for the review and discussion. I plan to vote “no-objection” for this document in tonight’s IESG telechat. Jari signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-08

Thanks for your (re)-review Pete 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

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-04

Dale: Many thanks for this review, which indeed was exceptionally useful. (“Super” as Charlie put it.) I have placed a no-objection position for this document for tonight’s IESG telechat. But I think your discussion on the details of changes inspired by Dale’s review probably needs to

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-key-tag-04

Thanks! On 01 Feb 2017, at 23:18, Christer Holmberg wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, > please see the FAQ at > > > Document:

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-19

On 05 Feb 2017, at 19:43, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > Thanks a lot for your review Brian. +1 Jari signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-11

Many thanks for your review, Joel. I have balloted no-objection for this document on today’s IESG telechat. Jari On 03 Feb 2017, at 01:03, Joel Halpern wrote: > Reviewer: Joel Halpern > Review result: Not Ready > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-Art Last Call review of draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol-06

Thanks for your review, Orit! (Authors, did you note the comment?) 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

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-05

Roni: thanks for your detailed review. I also appreciate the responses and changes by you Tianxiang. I have balloted no-objection for this document for today’s IESG telechat, and expect that the discussed changes will find themselves into a new document version at some point. Jari

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04

On 14/02/2017 23:00, Templin, Fred L wrote: Unless there is operational assurance of some size X>1280, however, tunnels have to use fragmentation to guarantee that - at a minimum - packets up to 1280 will get through. In that case there really needs to be a note about MPLS. You can fragment

Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-nd-04.txt

Hi Jari I’ll review the comments and respond to them. Thanks, Bill Cerveny On 2/16/17, 7:47 AM, "Jari Arkko" wrote: Thanks for the detailed review, Francis! Authors — did you make a note of the comments? Did not see a response… Jari On 24

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-Art Last Call review of draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol-06

Hi Jari, all, Comment noted and should make it to an update when we process the other comments received! Tim > On 16 Feb 2017, at 12:58, Jari Arkko wrote: > > Thanks for your review, Orit! > > (Authors, did you note the comment?) > > Jari >

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-Art Last Call review of draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol-06

Thanks! On 16 Feb 2017, at 17:29, Tim Bruijnzeels wrote: > Hi Jari, all, > > Comment noted and should make it to an update when we process the other > comments received! > > Tim > > >> On 16 Feb 2017, at 12:58, Jari Arkko wrote: >> >> Thanks for your

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04

On 2/16/2017 7:59 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote: > > > On 14/02/2017 23:00, Templin, Fred L wrote: >> Unless there is operational assurance of >> some size X>1280, however, tunnels have to use fragmentation to >> guarantee that - at a minimum - packets up to 1280 will get through. > > In that case

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04

On 17/02/2017 04:59, Stewart Bryant wrote: > > > On 14/02/2017 23:00, Templin, Fred L wrote: >> Unless there is operational assurance of >> some size X>1280, however, tunnels have to use fragmentation to >> guarantee that - at a minimum - packets up to 1280 will get through. > > In that case

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04

On 2/16/2017 11:59 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 17/02/2017 04:59, Stewart Bryant wrote: >> >> On 14/02/2017 23:00, Templin, Fred L wrote: >>> Unless there is operational assurance of >>> some size X>1280, however, tunnels have to use fragmentation to >>> guarantee that - at a minimum -