normative reference: RFC 1341 (Obsoleted by RFC 1521)
According to authors this reference is intentional.
It is.
Thanks David (and Alexey).
pr
--
Pete Resnick http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
David/Randy/Per,
I haven't seen any reply to this message. IESG review is coming up on
Thursday morning. Please respond to these issues well before then.
pr
On 7/5/11 9:53 AM, Miguel A. Garcia wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft. For
On 7/28/11 4:58 PM, David Singer wrote:
On Jul 28, 2011, at 13:48 , Sean Turner wrote:
I thought we'd settled on updated the ones that are already published so that
implementers will more easily be able to find the parameter.
Yup, my dropped ball. I should have communicated with
On 7/28/11 5:57 PM, David Singer wrote:
I linked the affected RFCs in the IANA considerations section. I am happy to
edit the XML so that the document reflects this -- do you know how to edit the
XML to say this?
If you feel like making the change, in the rfc directive, add
Your initial suspicion was correct: It is a typo.
Impressive how many folks can miss something so simple.
I'll put it in a note to the RFC Editor.
pr
On 10/20/11 5:48 AM, Miguel A. Garcia wrote:
Yes, I interpret the same. But having found no motivation for the
reduction of 10 octets, I just
On 10/20/11 6:59 AM, Miguel A. Garcia wrote:
But even if it is a typo, the text makes no sense. It says:
Section 2.1.1 of [RFC5322] limits lines to 998 characters and
recommends that the lines be restricted to only 78 characters. This
specification changes the former limit to 988
Wait for other changes. This is strictly editorial.
On 11/18/11 9:44 AM, Mark Davis ☕ wrote:
Sounds good, I can make that change, and search for other isolate t's.
Pete, should I wait for other comments, or go ahead and make and post
that change?
Mark
/— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —/
/
Brian,
On 6/7/12 8:28 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
S Moonesamy wrote:
Brian Carpenter wrote:
Also, RFC4406 states that Sending domains MAY publish either or both
formats (i.e. spf1 or spf2.0). That being so, I would ideally expect
to see nine rows in the results table:
SPF RR only,
On 7/3/12 7:51 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
On Jul 3, 2012, at 14:24, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
I found it is to be odd to have a requirements document as a BCP, but I am sure
you can sort the right status out with IESG.
+1
I fail to see why Informational wouldn't be the better status.
On 7/17/12 5:14 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 13:57 -0500 Pete Resnick
presn...@qualcomm.com wrote:
Perhaps I'm just being contrarian today, but I *do* think this
document should be BCP and not Informational. It is not a
requirements document in the sense
On 9/18/12 8:45 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
Nits/editorial comments:
-- IDNits has some complaints; please check.
They were checked.
-- The abstract should mention that this obsoletes 5721
It does.
-- section 2.1, 2nd paragraph: The character encoding format of maildrops may not
On 9/21/12 10:23 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
-- The abstract should mention that this obsoletes 5721
It does.
Sorry. You said abstract, not intro. Got it.
pr
--
Pete Resnickhttp://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
On 11/30/12 8:50 AM, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:
OLD:
...Working Group defined values of individual, org, group, and
location for the KIND property. Additionally, [RFC6473] has
defined a value of application for the KIND property to represent
software applications.
During working group
As per a suggestion in another thread: Would you also say that this
draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard? This is more
architectural overview than protocol per-se, but I do think it is
necessary to the understanding of the other protocol documents (hence it
is a normative
On 10/11/13 11:27 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
Major issues:
Section 4 says: ... members of any given working group ... Working
groups do not have members; they have participants. Please reword to
avoid confusion on this point.
Done.
Minor issues:
Section 4 says that humming should be the
On 3/20/14 5:20 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
(This may be more than a nit): In the ABNF in section 3.6.5, where is
the implementer supposed to go to find the definition of 'zone'? (Or
the other production names?) I think _this_ chunk of ABNF (as opposed
to that compiled in the appendix) is intended
On 12/2/14 11:20 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
When you suggest saying more, are you suggesting saying more in the
document?
I mostly meant the writeup - I expect there will be IESG folks with the same
questions I had.
I can do that, sure.
This document updates:
...
On 12/5/14 4:38 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
Hi, David. One note on your review:
idnits didn't like the reference to RFC 20 for ASCII:
** Downref: Normative reference to an Unknown state RFC: RFC 20
RFC 5234 (ABNF) uses this, which looks like a better reference:
[US-ASCII] American
You missed the Zhang reference in 2.2.5. Otherwise fine.
pr
On 22 Oct 2015, at 11:45, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
See attached. Sorry for the oversight.
On Oct 22, 2015, at 12:09 PM, Pete Resnick
<presn...@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
All of the changes you made look fine.
You c
, Pete Resnick <presn...@qti.qualcomm.com>
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. Please treat these comments just like
any other last call comments.
Fo
ttp://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-aqm-fq-implementation-02
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review Date: 2015-10-6
IETF LC End Date: 2015-10-15
IESG Telechat date: 2015-10-22
Summary:
This document is in fine shape and is generally ready for publication
(caveat some
ttp://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition-04
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review Date: 2016-03-21
IETF LC End Date: 2016-03-28
Summary: This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described
in this review.
Major issues:
None.
more comfortable.
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
and how
it can be prevented in the future.
Please, leave it short, with either the short correction at the top from
either Brian or myself.
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478_
done making the changes,
should I upload a new version using the IETF submission tool
or should I simply email the .txt or .xml only to you/Gen-art team?
Thanks.
Sriram
-Original Message-
From: Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 6:02 PM
To: Pete Resnick <pr
ttp://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-ospf-sbfd-discriminator-04
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review Date: 2016-04-18
IETF LC End Date: 2016-04-26
IESG Telechat date: 2016-05-05
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC.
Major issues: None
ttp://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility-03
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review Date: 2016-08-08
IETF LC End Date: 2016-08-11
IESG Telechat date: Unknown
Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has some
minor issues and nits that
te it), I would
suggest simply changing it to something like: "Note: There is no
guarantee that the fields in the ticket are going to be decodable to a
client, and therefore attempts by a client to examine the ticket are
unlikely to be useful."
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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
0010? If so, why is that?
For any particular administrative purpose it could be possible to set
it to a different value, but that shouldn’t be done.
Well, it doesn't say that shouldn't be done, but it probably doesn't
need to say anything about local configurations.
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www
not to say anything on that.
Thanks
Daniele
From: Pete Resnick [mailto:presn...@qti.qualcomm.com]
Sent: martedì 7 febbraio 2017 18:05
To: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccare...@ericsson.com>
Cc: Jari Arkko <jari.ar...@piuha.net>; gen-art@ietf.org;
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext@
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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
LSP,
but merely as the way to express the supported frequency range."
I'm ok with dropping the sentence.
I think dropping the sentence would make the most sense.
Thank you
Daniele
Thanks for considering my suggested changes.
pr
-Original Message-
From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting
, then that's a MUST.
As I said before, I'm someone who doesn't like putting in MUSTs and
SHOULDs (I've even written protocol documents where they never appear),
but if you really mean "required" or "required unless you know what
you're doing", I see no harm in put
at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility-03
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review Date: 2016-09-06
IESG Telechat date: 2016-09-01
Summary: This is an odd post-telechat review, but I think the draft has
gone from "Ready" to &quo
use
the refresh request in 5766." Do I have that right? If so, the paragraph
could use a rewrite; it's not the MUST and the MUST NOT that are the
problem.
Anyway, I
am not wedded to keeping the MUST as long as the MUST NOT prevents the
sending of a packet that is certain to be rejected.
7 Sep 2016, at 2:24, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hi Pete,
On 06/09/16 16:55, Pete Resnick wrote:
However, I believe Suresh was incorrect in suggesting the first
"MUST",
and it should be removed. There is no harm being prevented here. "If
a
client wants X, it MUST send Y" is abs
Request.
If that's not what you meant, you should probably clarify.
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Document: draft-ietf-lisp-crypto-09
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review Date: 2016-10-12
IETF LC End Date: 2016-10-04
IESG Telechat date: 2016-10-13
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Experimental RFC
Though this is not an area of expertise for me
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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 for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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 for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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 for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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 treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
et the full scrutiny of a standards-track document.
Regards,
Ruediger
Cheers,
pr
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Pete Resnick [mailto:presn...@qti.qualcomm.com]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 28. Juni 2017 20:31
An: gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: spr...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org;
draft-ietf-spring-o
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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 for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version
/
organization /
path /
summary /
supersedes /
user-agent /
xref
optional-field /=newsfields
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qu
from having useful
information. :-) Yes, this document registers it, but really what the
implementer is going to need is this document *and* 5640, so I see no
particular harm in putting both references in the registry, and it's
probably useful.
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review result: Almost 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 treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
On 21 Aug 2017, at 10:58, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
Hi Pete,
On 8/21/17, 11:40 AM, "Pete Resnick" <presn...@qti.qualcomm.com>
wrote:
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review result: Almost Ready
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting
BOF" can be referred by RFC 6771 (also
include in
Informational References)
5. section 3.2.3 - unless there is a special reason I suggest to
delete the
double-dashes before and after -- or at an acceptable --
6. Section 4.6:
s/The meetings budget is managed by the IAD/The IAD manages t
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review result: Almost 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 treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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
Thanks Mahesh. Looks great.
pr
On 23 Apr 2018, at 11:54, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote:
Tom/Pete,
We believe this version of the draft addresses your comments.
Thanks.
On Apr 23, 2018, at 9:48 AM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
Hi Mahesh,
Trimming a bit:
On 20 Jun 2018, at 0:36, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote:
3.1 - s/The test session name that MUST be identical/The test session
name,
which MUST be identical (Unless you mean something really weird that
I don't
think you mean. If you don't see the difference, then trust
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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 for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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
or is
fine, and they'll be able to make it all consistent across the sections.
And they're very good about avoiding breaking meanings when they do
their edits.
Thanks again for your valuable review input, and please let me know if
the above resolutions make sense to you.
Best,
Ethan (as edi
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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 for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version
Hi Lou,
I've got a preliminary question about draft-ietf-detnet-use-cases that
isn't answered in the intro to the document or in your shepherd writeup.
I've Cced the WG just to make sure they're in the loop, and I've Cced
the gen-art list and the responsible AD just in case Deborah or any of
that's in my editorial comments in the review.
Thanks to you and others for the explanations.
pr
On 9/24/2018 11:43 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
Hi Lou,
I've got a preliminary question about draft-ietf-detnet-use-cases
that
isn't answered in the intro to the document or in your shepherd
writeup
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting
think it's highly unlikely that she (or anyone on
the IESG) would balk at this point in history.
Thanks for your (and Peter's) quick replies to these reviews.
pr
--
Pete Resnick http://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting
oming-11#section-8.3
Fair enough.
Thanks again for the updates. As the boilerplate for the review says,
wait for instructions from your AD for further guidance, particularly in
order to address Alissa's DISCUSS.
pr
--
Pete Resnick http://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous
solutions.
Is that second sentence right? If you are giving a general class of
solutions,
that seems agnostic to the particular solution. Just a bit confusing.
Updated.
A host SHOULD be able respond dynamically...
Do you mean "is expected to" instead of "SH
ublication.]
I would suggest the authors to remove the phrase "(Early allocation by
IANA)" in the document now as the referenced draft is in RFC-EDITOR
queue and the early allocation tag is removed in the IANA page -
https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-objects
That's fi
Thanks for the changes. Followup comments inline below; trimming the
ones that already look fine.
On 22 Aug 2019, at 8:51, dominique.bart...@orange.com wrote:
Le 07/08/19 05:13, « Pete Resnick via Datatracker »
a
écrit :
Section 7.1 or 7.3:
[DB] your proposed rephrasing is not quite
for comments that could actually have an
impact. Agree that they don't have teeth.
Yep, what I figured.
Would you kindly review the attached diff and comment on the changes?
I'll wait for your comments before uploading.
Yep, looks pretty good to me. Thanks.
pr
--
Pete Resnick http://www.epist
n-NENA-i3 client or server can use the tag or not as they
wish.
--Randall
On 8 Mar 2020, at 12:59, Pete Resnick wrote:
Hi Randy,
Section 3 of the document defines the operations that one must
perform in order to use the tag. It explains how to go beyond what
5222 provides by defining
a new tag, not defining a new protocol.
--Randall
On 7 Mar 2020, at 8:52, Pete Resnick via Datatracker wrote:
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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
b
cument has "Intend status: Informational". The
two should be made to agree.
- Bernie
On Sep 9, 2020, at 8:45 PM, Fernando Gont
wrote:
Hello, Pete,
Thanks a lot for your feedback! In-line....
On 9/9/20 16:39, Pete Resnick via Datatracker wrote:
[]
Major issues: None
draft-ietf-v
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 Standard. The shepherd's writeup does not justify it, and in
fact the
writeup
ived, ..."
Perfect.
All of the others look fine. Thanks again for the quick reply.
Cheers,
pr
--
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
On 24 Apr 2021, at 17:38, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Saturday, April 24, 2021 14:33 -0700 Pete Resnick via
Datatracker wrote:
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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
[Sorry; resending from the proper From address.]
Oh, one other bit: In the directive at the top of the XML, you
should add seriesNo="39" as an indicator to the RFC Editor to make sure
that this document is added to BCP 39, not create a new BCP number.
On 15 Feb 2022, at 14:02, Pe
in the table (Table 1) in section 3.6
NEW:
Though listed as optional in Table 1 of Section 3.6
That's an annoying artifact of xml2rfc. I'll have a go at fixing it.
Thanks again,
pr
--
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review result: Almost 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 treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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 for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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 for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review result: On the Right Track
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
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review result: On the Right Track
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
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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 for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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 treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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 treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
