Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-hardie-privsec-metadata-insertion-05

Hi Stewart, Thanks for the review. I've updated the abstract, removed the vestigial reference, added a reference for EDNS0 and clarified how it is used in the design I describe. Thanks again for your attention to it, Ted On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 2:13 AM, Stewart Bryant

Re: [Gen-art] [Slim] Review of draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language-06

At 10:42 AM -0500 2/22/17, Dale R. Worley wrote: Gunnar Hellström writes: A. Call failure If a call fails due to no available language match, in what way(s) does it fail? Section 5.3 says If such an offer is received, the receiver MAY reject

Re: [Gen-art] [Slim] Review of draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language-06

At 11:57 AM +0100 2/22/17, Gunnar Hellström wrote: A few comments inline, Den 2017-02-22 kl. 02:44, skrev Randall Gellens: Hi Dale, Thank you for your review, I appreciate it. Please see inline. At 6:32 PM -0800 2/17/17, Dale Worley wrote: Reviewer: Dale Worley Review result:

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option: Server Time

Thanks! There is one before this for the other major question. Also, I am working on the minor changes & "wordiness" of the document. Spencer had a great idea to move some more things into an Appendix. So, have done that. Should have that cleaned up in a day or two. Nalini Elkins Inside

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option: Server Time

Hi, I’ll have a review of the changes shortly. Just wanted to acknowledge I’ve seen this mail ;) Thanks, Jouni > On Feb 21, 2017, at 10:12 AM, nalini.elk...@insidethestack.com wrote: > > I don't know why this email keeps getting cut off! > > I am attaching my response in a text

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-13

My thanks as well - to Robert for a most careful review and to Greg for handling the draft for all these years. Regards, Sasha On Feb 22, 2017 16:22, "Greg Mirsky" wrote: > Hi Robert, > agreed. Thank you for your thorough review and the most helpful comments. > I'll

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-13

Hi Robert, agreed. Thank you for your thorough review and the most helpful comments. I'll upload the update shortly. Regards, Greg On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 1:09 AM, Robert Sparks wrote: > I would simply delete "To ensure precise accuracy in time determination" > and start

[Gen-art] review of draft-kivinen-802-15-ie-04.txt

Francis Dupont writes: > Nits/editorial comments: > - ToC page 1 and 3 page 3 (title): Benefitting -> Benefiting > > - 3 page 3 (suggest): CoRE etc, -> CoRE, etc, Fixed. > - 4 page 3: reading the document I had a question about the "no need > ... to specify the internal structure" but

Re: [Gen-art] [Slim] Review of draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language-06

A few comments inline, Den 2017-02-22 kl. 02:44, skrev Randall Gellens: Hi Dale, Thank you for your review, I appreciate it. Please see inline. At 6:32 PM -0800 2/17/17, Dale Worley wrote: Reviewer: Dale Worley Review result: Ready with Nits I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-13

I would simply delete "To ensure precise accuracy in time determination" and start the sentence at "These actions" RjS On 2/15/17 9:40 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote: Hi Robert, safe travel and here's another version for your consideration. The point I'm trying to convey is that the jitter is real