Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-mahesh-etsi-urn-01

Hi Stewart, I have fixed all the typos, and found two more that I have fixed also. Sorry. Should have run the spellchecker. URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mahesh-etsi-urn-02.txt Status:

[Gen-art] Review Assignments

Hi all, The following reviewers have assignments: For telechat 2018-06-21 Reviewer Type LC end Draft Vijay Gurbani Last Call 2018-05-21 draft-ietf-sfc-hierarchical-08 Joel Halpern Telechat 2018-05-24 draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-12 *

[Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-12

Reviewer: Joel Halpern 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

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06

Hi Michael, Please see inline. >> On 4. Jun 2018, at 05:17, Christer Holmberg >> wrote: >> >> >> Re-sent due to wrong e-mail address. >> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have also looked at this document, and there are things that I have >>> think are unclear: >>> >>> Q1: It is Informational, and it

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06

Hi, >>Not a comment on the document, but a question/suggestion: >> >> If you want to have a place holder for changes to be done in the bis >> (which seems to be the main purpose of the errata document), why not >> create a GitHub repo for the bis, and then document everything as GitHub >>

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06

> On 7. Jun 2018, at 02:43, Christer Holmberg > wrote: > > > Hi, > >>> Not a comment on the document, but a question/suggestion: >>> >>> If you want to have a place holder for changes to be done in the bis >>> (which seems to be the main purpose of the errata document), why not >>> create a

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06

> On 7. Jun 2018, at 02:40, Christer Holmberg > wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > Please see inline. > >>> On 4. Jun 2018, at 05:17, Christer Holmberg >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Re-sent due to wrong e-mail address. >>> Hi, I have also looked at this document, and there are

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06

+1, as Chair. I see we have caused a little confusion here - The WG will not repeat this list of changes again as a part of the new .bis document. There could always be potentially be further changes as the .bis document passes through the WG - of course - but we'd rather expect this spec is

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06

FWIW, On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 5:33 AM Gorry Fairhurst wrote: > +1, as Chair. I see we have caused a little confusion here - The WG will > not repeat this list of changes again as a part of the new .bis document. > > There could always be potentially be further changes as the .bis > document

[Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-mahesh-etsi-urn-01

Reviewer: Stewart Bryant 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

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-errata-06

Hi, >+1, as Chair. I see we have caused a little confusion here - The WG will >not repeat this list of changes again as a part of the new .bis document. In my opinion a bis should always describe (at least on a high level) what changes have been done since the previous version. If for no other