Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model-16

Fair enough. I think the author has implemented this in v(-017). -Qin -邮件原件- 发件人: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com] 发送时间: 2016年10月11日 7:49 收件人: Qin Wu; stephane.litkow...@orange.com; draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model@ietf.org; General Area Review Team;

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model-16

That's certainly a valid option, but if you limit it to NAT44 I strongly suggest *calling* it NAT44, not plain NAT. Regards Brian Carpenter On 10/10/2016 21:55, Qin Wu wrote: > Not sure we should enumerate all the options in the base model, so your > solution makes sense to me. > > -Qin >

[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-lisp-lcaf-16

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 comment. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC (and telechat) review for draft-ietf-regext-epp-rdap-status-mapping-01

I incorporated Robert Sparks feedback and made the following editorial changes in the just published draft-ietf-regext-epp-rdap-status-mapping-02 draft: Replaced the reference of “redemptionPeriod” to “redemption period” to use the RDAP form Replaced the reference of “domain name” to “object”

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC (and telechat) review for draft-ietf-regext-epp-rdap-status-mapping-01

Robert, Thank you for your review and feedback. I provide responses to your feedback below. — JG James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com > On Oct 5, 2016, at 4:58 PM, Robert

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric-09

Thanks Brian - we will remove RFC 5340. Acee On 10/6/16, 3:43 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" 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.

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model-16

Not sure we should enumerate all the options in the base model, so your solution makes sense to me. -Qin -邮件原件- 发件人: stephane.litkow...@orange.com [mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com] 发送时间: 2016年10月10日 16:29 收件人: Brian E Carpenter; draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model@ietf.org;

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model-16

For NAT, I would like to hear opinion for other people before doing the change. And additional options can be added through augmentation. One solution is to limit to IPv4 case which is really usual today. -Original Message- From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com]