Ah, I understand - thanks, no worries.
H
On 7/8/2020 6:47 AM, Vijay Gurbani wrote:
> Ah, I reviewed version 8, which had an intended status of Historic. As
> I was nearing the end of the document, -09 was released. Instead of
> reading -09 all over again, I read the diffs between -08 and -09.
Ines:
Thanks for the very carful review. I'll tackle the ones about the ASN.1...
> 4- Appendix A: In id-aa-asymmDecryptKeyID OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {...}
>
> 4.1- pkcs9(9) should be pkcs-9(9) ?
Both are used in different modules. They have become synonyms. That said, we
should pick one,
Reviewer: Ines Robles
Review result: Ready with Nits
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
Meral, thanks for your review. All, thanks for your responses. I entered a No
Objection ballot.
Alissa
> On Jun 27, 2020, at 4:08 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
>
> Hi Meral,
>
> Thank you for the review.
>
> Please see inline.
>
> Cheers,
> Med
>
> De : Meral Shirazipour
Dale, thanks for your review. All, thanks for addressing Dale’s comments. I
entered a No Objection ballot.
Alissa
> On Jun 8, 2020, at 10:12 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
>
> Chuck Lever writes:
>>> On May 29, 2020, at 9:44 PM, wor...@ariadne.com wrote:
>>> These changes look sufficient to me.
Robert, thanks for your review. Huaimo, thanks for addressing Robert’s
comments. I entered a No Objection ballot.
Alissa
> On Jun 12, 2020, at 11:49 AM, Huaimo Chen wrote:
>
> Hi Robert,
>
> Thank you very much for your suggestion.
> We have updated the document (version 16
Thanks Brian. I entered a No Objection ballot.
Alissa
> On Jun 6, 2020, at 11:58 PM, Brian Carpenter via Datatracker
> wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
> Review result: Ready
>
> Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-12
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer
Thank you Vijay,
The resolution of some of the last call comments was to change the intended
status to Informational. I don’t see a need to re-issue the review if others do
not.
Karen
From: Vijay Gurbani
Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 at 9:48 AM
To: Harlan Stenn
Cc: "gen-art >> General area
Ah, I reviewed version 8, which had an intended status of Historic. As I
was nearing the end of the document, -09 was released. Instead of reading
-09 all over again, I read the diffs between -08 and -09. Looks like the
intended status was changed to Informational in -09, and this change, while
> On 30 Jun 2020, at 17:55, Pete Resnick wrote:
>
> On 30 Jun 2020, at 7:24, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>
>>> On 29 Jun 2020, at 18:30, Pete Resnick via Datatracker
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Minor issues:
>>>
>>> It is not clear to me why this is being sent for Informational instead of
>>> Proposed
10 matches
Mail list logo
