Re: [Gen-art] [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12

Acee, I misspoke below. The optimization is to include as few non-RTM capable nodes as possible. :) -- Eric From: mpls [mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eric Gray Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 5:36 PM To: Acee Lindem (acee) ; Stewart

Re: [Gen-art] [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12

Les, While the capability may be of generic value, it is most useful when used to select an explicit path. We target MPLS in the draft for a large number of reasons, but most importantly because this is the currently most common mechanism for realistic explicit paths.

Re: [Gen-art] [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-12

Acee, Each included node that does not support RTM introduces a variable delay component. This would introduce a potential accuracy impact in conveying timing information across a network. While it is not necessary to use a path that is composed

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review postings (Was: Re: Review of draft-ietf-geojson-text-sequence-03)

On 25/01/2017 04:27, Dale R. Worley wrote: ... > Also, is there a reason why people would want to see "Gen-ART last-call > review of ..." vs. "Gen-ART telechat review of ..."? It wouldn't make a > difference to me, but perhaps it is useful input to someone else's > workflow. IMHO, it makes a

[Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-oauth-jwsreq-09

Reviewer: Joel Halpern 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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new

[Gen-art] review of draft-freytag-lager-variant-rules-02.txt

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

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

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

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review postings (Was: Re: Review of draft-ietf-geojson-text-sequence-03)

Jari Arkko writes: > First, there’s been a change from “Gen-ART review: ….” to > “Review of …” in the e-mail subject lines. Which do people > prefer? It may depend on who you are. I only see reviews via the gen-art mailing list or followups thereto, so the subject line

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review postings (Was: Re: Review of draft-ietf-geojson-text-sequence-03)

On 1/24/17 6:30 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: Robert, Thanks for the review, again! And thank you so much (for the whole set of people) for the new review tool and integration to the tracker. It makes my life much easier. Just a couple of discussion points relating to how we post these today wrt.

[Gen-art] Gen-ART review postings (Was: Re: Review of draft-ietf-geojson-text-sequence-03)

Robert, Thanks for the review, again! And thank you so much (for the whole set of people) for the new review tool and integration to the tracker. It makes my life much easier. Just a couple of discussion points relating to how we post these today wrt. before when we didn’t have the new tool