Joel, thanks for your review. Ingemar, thanks for addressing Joel’s comments. I
have entered a No Objection ballot.
Alissa
> On Oct 15, 2017, at 3:34 PM, Ingemar Johansson S
> wrote:
>
> Hi
> Thanks for your review comments. Answers inline marked [IJ]
>
>
发件人: Alissa Cooper [mailto:ali...@cooperw.in]
发送时间: 2017年10月25日 23:21
收件人: Qin Wu
抄送: Greg Mirsky; draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-methods@ietf.org;
gen-art@ietf.org; l...@ietf.org
主题: Re: [Gen-art] [Lime] Genart telechat review of
draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-methods-09
Thanks Alissa.
发件人: Lime [mailto:lime-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Alissa Cooper
发送时间: 2017年10月25日 22:42
收件人: Srihari Raghavan (srihari)
抄送: gen-art@ietf.org; Elwyn Davies; l...@ietf.org; Qin Wu;
draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam@ietf.org
主题: Re: [Lime] [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of
Peter, thanks for your reviews. Authors, thanks for addressing Peter’s
comments. I entered a No Objection ballot.
Alissa
> On Oct 24, 2017, at 2:20 PM, Peter Yee wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Peter Yee
> Review result: Ready
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The
Jari, thanks for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot.
Alissa
> On Oct 25, 2017, at 4:53 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Jari Arkko
> Review result: Ready with Issues
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team
Andy Bierman writes:
> Actually the term "leafs" is used 31 times in RFC 7950.
> The term "leaves" is used zero times.
> I think the same is true in all existing YANG-related RFCs.
When I reviewed a Yang document, I was told that "leafs" was the term
that was used in Yang
Kent Watsen writes:
> > Actually the term "leafs" is used 31 times in RFC 7950.
> > The term "leaves" is used zero times.
> > I think the same is true in all existing YANG-related RFCs.
>
>Agreed. I always see "leafs". I don't think we should change this.
Agreed. Nothing wrong with
Reviewer: Jari Arkko
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 more
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <
mjethanand...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Stewart,
>
> On Oct 24, 2017, at 11:40 AM, Stewart Bryant
> wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
> Review result: Ready
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The
A small response in line below:
On 26/10/2017 04:16, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> Brian, thank you for your review. Qin, thanks for your responses. I have
> entered a No Objection ballot that captures the remaining open issue
> concerning one-way vs. two-way delay. One further comment below.
>
>> On
Stewart,
> On Oct 24, 2017, at 11:40 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>
> 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
Stewart, thank you for your review. I have entered a Yes ballot.
Alissa
> On Oct 24, 2017, at 2:40 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
> Review result: Ready
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team
> On Oct 19, 2017, at 4:38 AM, Qin Wu wrote:
>
> Thanks Greg, As I said, Delay supports various time units which include
> Nanoseconds. Nanosecond time unit has been supported by using identity in
> connectionless-oam-method model
> “
> identity seconds {
> base
Brian, thank you for your review. Qin, thanks for your responses. I have
entered a No Objection ballot that captures the remaining open issue concerning
one-way vs. two-way delay. One further comment below.
> On Oct 18, 2017, at 9:09 PM, Qin Wu wrote:
>
> -邮件原件-
>
Elwyn, thanks for your review. Authors, thanks for your responses. I have
entered a No Objection ballot.
Alissa
> On Oct 24, 2017, at 8:08 PM, Srihari Raghavan (srihari)
> wrote:
>
> Elwyn
>
> Thank you very much for your time and comments.
>
> We will address the
15 matches
Mail list logo