Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis-02

Roni, Assuming "easy" means "ready", thank you! Regards Brian Carpenter On 24-Sep-22 19:31, Roni Even via Datatracker wrote: Reviewer: Roni Even 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

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-carpenter-rfced-iab-charter-05

Can somebody tell me how to insert that seriesNo="39" in kramdown? Never mind. I found out by trial and error (seriesNo: "39"). Regards Brian On 16-Feb-22 10:25, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Pete, Good catches, thanks. Can somebody tell me how to insert that serie

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-carpenter-rfced-iab-charter-05

Pete, Good catches, thanks. Can somebody tell me how to insert that seriesNo="39" in kramdown? Regards Brian Carpenter On 16-Feb-22 09:08, Pete Resnick wrote: [Sorry; resending from the proper From address.] Oh, one other bit: In the directive at the top of the XML, you should add

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-anima-asa-guidelines-04

Hi Thomas, Thanks for the careful reading and review. I think we can deal with all your comments without difficulty. Just two possible discussion points in line below. Regards Brian On 07-Dec-21 03:58, Thomas Fossati via Datatracker wrote: Reviewer: Thomas Fossati Review result: Ready with

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-anima-grasp-api-08

anks. I'm happy now. > > Paul > > On 12/3/20 4:22 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> Below... >> >> On 04-Dec-20 04:17, Paul Kyzivat wrote: >>> Brian, >>> >>> One more thing occurred to me: >>> >>> On 12/2/20 12:29 P

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tls-external-psk-importer-05

FYI, the -06 draft satisfies all my concerns. Thanks Brian Carpenter On 07-Oct-20 15:24, Brian Carpenter via Datatracker wrote: > Reviewer: Brian Carpenter > Review result: Ready with Issues > > Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-tls-external-psk-importer-05 > > I am the assigned

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-anima-grasp-api-08

Below... On 04-Dec-20 04:17, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > Brian, > > One more thing occurred to me: > > On 12/2/20 12:29 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > Also, the goal of negotiation isn't clear to me. I gather it must be for the two sides to agree on a particular value for the objective. But for

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-anima-grasp-api-08

Hi Paul, Comments in line. There's one definite good catch in your review, and obviously more clarifications are needed. On 01-Dec-20 15:06, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-anima-grasp-api-07

Thanks Paul. We'll try to clarify those points in the text, so I won't comment in detail on your comments. I can see how your questions arise for a newcomer to GRASP, so they do need to be answered. It will take a little while to do this, so the AD will defer the draft to a later telechat.

Re: [Gen-art] [Last-Call] [dispatch] Genart last call review of draft-hardie-dispatch-rfc3405-update-03

On 03-Sep-20 05:41, Ted Hardie wrote: > To reply to the text change in particular: > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 3:52 AM Timothy Mcsweeney > wrote: > > __ > > >>This draft could spell out each of those edits precisely, or just > replace all of Section 3.1.1

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel-21

Thanks Christer, that all looks good to me, Regards Brian On 13-Jul-20 20:58, Christer Holmberg wrote: > Hi Brian, > > Thank You for the review! Please see inline. > > > Nits: > - > >>> 4.1. MSRP URI >>> >>> transport /= "dc" >>> >>> I see that RFC7977 takes a slightly

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel-21

On 14-Jul-20 02:58, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > Brian, > > On 7/12/20 6:40 PM, Brian Carpenter via Datatracker wrote: > >> Nits: >> - >> 4.1. MSRP URI >> transport /= "dc" >> >> I see that RFC7977 takes a slightly different approach to updating the ABNF: >>

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-git-using-github-04

Thanks Brian On 04-Mar-20 15:06, Alissa Cooper wrote: > I put this in an RFC Editor note. > Alissa > >> On Feb 24, 2020, at 11:04 AM, Martin Thomson wrote: >> >> Thanks Brian, >> >> On Sun, Feb 23, 2020, at 17:01, Brian Carpenter via Datatracker wrote: >>> Is this draft intended to become

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane-12

Hi, For the record, the -13 version addresses all my comments. Thanks Brian Carpenter On 11-Dec-19 11:49, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Thanks Adrian. All OK for me, with one inserted comment below. > > Regards >Brian > > On 10-Dec-19 23:07, Adrian Farrel wrote: >>

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane-12

Thanks Adrian. All OK for me, with one inserted comment below. Regards Brian On 10-Dec-19 23:07, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi Brian, > > Thanks for your time with this. > > In line... > >> Comments: >> - >> >> I am not a BGP expert and did not check the BGP details. This >> is a

Re: [Gen-art] [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-09.txt

would be incompatible with this change if it > ever did show up on the wire? > > Thanks, > > Ben > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 11:23:42AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> Hi Dave, >> >> Thanks. I think that covers it. I still suspect that the original r

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-regext-login-security-05

James, Comments in line: On 06-Nov-19 07:58, Gould, James wrote: > Brian,   > > Thank you for your review and feedback.  My responses are embedded below.  I > will include updates based on your feedback in > draft-ietf-regext-login-security-06 at the conclusion of the last call. > > --   > >

Re: [Gen-art] [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-09.txt

Hi Dave, Thanks. I think that covers it. I still suspect that the original reason was concern about int versus uint confusion, but the new text is fine. Regards Brian Carpenter On 25-Oct-19 08:35, Dave Lawrence wrote: > internet-dra...@ietf.org writes: >> A diff from the previous version is

[Gen-art] Process issue: no Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-yang-data-ext

Hi, I've been assigned as Gen-ART reviewer for draft-ietf-netmod-yang-data-ext, which is on the IESG agenda for 2019-10-31, but there has been no IETF Last Call. I'll do the review, but you'll need to do the Last Call and defer the draft, I fear. Regards Brian Carpenter

Re: [Gen-art] [ipwave] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-46

Because of the non-plain text and the commenting styles used, I am unclear who wrote what below, but please see my comment in line: On 23-Jun-19 18:18, Roni Even (A) wrote: > > Inline > > > From: Roni Even (A) [mailto:roni.e...@huawei.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June

Re: [Gen-art] [GROW] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-03

On 05-May-19 06:03, Randy Bush wrote: >> In my opinion, this document adds new requirements or at least new >> considerations for implementations of RFC1997, I think that means it >> updates RFC1997. I liked to see it have "Updates: 1997" metadata added and >> appropriate statements in the

Re: [Gen-art] [lisp] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01

rsion is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-02 > > Cheers, > Med > >> -Message d'origine- >> De : mohamed.boucad...@orange.com [mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com] >> Envoyé : vendredi 21 décembre 2018 07:57 >

Re: [Gen-art] [lisp] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01

;> Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned according to >>>>> procedures in [RFC8126]. >>>>> >>>>> NEW: >>>>> >>>>> Values in the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned via Standards >>>

Re: [Gen-art] [lisp] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01

n the "Not Assigned" range can be assigned via Standards >> Action [RFC8113]. >> >> Cheers, >> Med >> >>> -Message d'origine- >>> De : Dino Farinacci [mailto:farina...@gmail.com] >>> Envoyé : mercredi 19 décembre 2018 19:00 >

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01

On 2018-12-19 15:46, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > This is part of the package to move the coherent set of base LISP specs > to PS. > > The reason we did this rather than folding it into 6830bis / 6833bis is > that we had originally simply cited 8113, and then realized that needed > to move to PS

Re: [Gen-art] dealing with many the secdir and genart comments [on draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra]

On 2018-11-30 11:36, Michael Richardson wrote: > > {This is the first of many replies to the various reviews} > > Jari Arkko wrote: >> My first bigger comment is that I believe the security and privacy >> considerations section should have provided an actual in-depth >> analysis of the

Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-08

Joel, On 2018-10-12 15:17, Joel Halpern wrote: > Nits/editorial comments: > The reference [IDevID] still appears to me to be a normative reference. It is normative in draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra, where it really matters. Seems like a marginal point in an Informational

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-10

Hi Eric, On 2018-10-05 04:15, Eric Rosen wrote: >> Minor issues: >> - >> >> As I understand it, if a network only partially supports the new >> (LIR-pF) flag, it doesn't work properly. So we find at the end of >> section 2: >> >> ...the ingress node can conclude >> that the egress

Re: [Gen-art] [Softwires] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast-22

On 2018-09-17 19:01, Ole Troan wrote: >> No, it isn't, but as far as I can see, any tunnel spec needs to state how >> this applies. If the tunnel keeps no packet state, how is it going to >> perform PMTUD? If the answer is that the tunnel end points need to be >> configured in some way, that

Re: [Gen-art] [Softwires] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast-22

On 2018-09-17 10:28, Joe Touch wrote: > Hi, Brian, > >> On Sep 16, 2018, at 1:44 PM, Brian E Carpenter >> wrote: >> >> Hi Joe, >> On 2018-09-17 05:15, Joe Touch wrote: >>> Hi, Brian, >>> >>> See comments below… >>> >

Re: [Gen-art] [Softwires] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast-22

Hi Joe, On 2018-09-17 05:15, Joe Touch wrote: > Hi, Brian, > > See comments below… > > Joe > >> On Sep 15, 2018, at 3:32 PM, Brian E Carpenter >> wrote: >> >> Dear 杨术, >> >> I have added Joe Touch in Cc because one point below overlaps

Re: [Gen-art] [Softwires] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast-22

Dear 杨术, I have added Joe Touch in Cc because one point below overlaps with his TSVART review. On 2018-09-16 06:41, 杨术 wrote: > Dear Brian, > > Thank you very much for your comments, the following is the response, > >> “One of the authors (Shu Yang) stated that the Bitway company (a

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-clarify-03

On 31/07/2018 13:35, Randy Bush wrote: > thanks for review! > >> Title would be more searchworthy if it read "BGP-4 Origin Validation >> Clarifications" > > ok. how about "BGP-4 RPKI-Based Origin Validation Clarifications?" Sure Brian > >> Abstract: s/\"/./ > > whoopsie. > > will

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06

Hi Stewart, On 02/07/2018 22:19, Stewart Bryant wrote: > Hi Brian > > Thank you for your review comments. Please see inline. > > On 12/06/2018 04:30, Brian Carpenter wrote: >> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter >> Review result: Ready with Nits >> >> Gen-ART Last Call review of

Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-6man-ndpioiana-02

On 01/05/2018 02:10, Ole Troan wrote: >> 4. Section 4 - It would be good to capitalize Standards Action, and refer to >> RFC 8126 as reference (also to be added) > > Capitalisation done. > I ended up leaning towards not referencing 8126. As most documents with IANA > considerations don't.

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-6tisch-6top-protocol-10

Hi, The published -11 text is even better than the proposal below. Thanks Brian Carpenter On 23/03/2018 08:10, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > That looks good to me. I think it will help implementers. > > Thanks >Brian Carpenter > > On 22/03/2018 21:41, Xavi Vilajo

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-6tisch-6top-protocol-10

That looks good to me. I think it will help implementers. Thanks Brian Carpenter On 22/03/2018 21:41, Xavi Vilajosana Guillen wrote: > Dear Brian, > > after the WG meeting we proceed to resolve your pointed issue. Thanks so > much for going through the draft again. > > We will publish v11

Re: [Gen-art] [6tisch] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-6tisch-6top-protocol-09

Hi, On 27/02/2018 05:31, Qin Wang wrote: ... > [Qin] Add following textin both section 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 > In case a race conditionhappens during the communication, the TSCH schedule > of node A may becomeinconsistent with the TSCH schedule of node B. 6top > handles the schedule inconsistency in

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC Review of draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-13

Replying as a protagonist - First thanks for the really thorough review with many good points. Now a few replies in-line: On 28/02/2018 15:24, Elwyn Davies wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being

Re: [Gen-art] [6tisch] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-6tisch-6top-protocol-09

Thanks, those changes look good. Regards Brian On 27/02/2018 05:31, Qin Wang wrote: > Hi Bian, > Thank you for your comments. Please see inline. > > > > On Friday, February 23, 2018 6:11 PM, Brian E Carpenter > <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote: &g

Re: [Gen-art] [6tisch] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-6tisch-6top-protocol-09

Hi Qin, see in line: On 24/02/2018 04:16, Qin Wang wrote: > Hi Brian, > Thank you very much for your comments. Please see inline. > > On Monday, February 19, 2018 6:22 PM, Brian Carpenter > wrote: > > Reviewer: Brian Carpenter > Review result: Ready with Issues

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-httpbis-origin-frame-04

Works for me. Brian On 28/11/2017 13:33, Mark Nottingham wrote: > Thanks again. Please see: > https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/871a80d12aa > > >> On 27 Nov 2017, at 1:05 pm, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-httpbis-origin-frame-04

Hi Mark, On 27/11/2017 12:38, Mark Nottingham wrote: > Hi Brian, > > Thanks for the review. Responses below. > >> On 26 Nov 2017, at 2:44 pm, Brian Carpenter >> wrote: > [...] >> Minor Issues: >> - >> >>> 2.1. Syntax >> ... >>> Origin: An OPTIONAL

Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-methods-09

ent below. > >> On Oct 18, 2017, at 9:09 PM, Qin Wu <bill...@huawei.com> wrote: >> >> -邮件原件- >> 发件人: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com] >> 发送时间: 2017年10月19日 3:26 >> 收件人: Qin Wu; gen-art@ietf.org >> 抄送: draft-ietf-lime-yang-conn

Re: [Gen-art] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-methods-10.txt

Hi, I don't see all the changes that were discussed in this version, and the typo in 'propreitary' has not been fixed. This does not seem ready for the telechat to me. Regards Brian On 24/10/2017 02:00, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line

Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-methods-09

On 17/10/2017 14:40, Qin Wu wrote: ... >> The same is applied to jitter. As clarified in the introduction, the >> definition of 'jitter' is used to monitor reachability of destinations, >> troubleshoot failures, monitor performance. > > Yes, but what *is* jitter physically? There is no

Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-methods-09

Qin, Thanks for the reply, I have follow-up questions in line: On 17/10/2017 00:52, Qin Wu wrote: > Thank Brian for valuable review to this document, please see my reply below. > > -Qin > -邮件原件- > 发件人: Brian Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com] > 发送时间: 2017年10月14日 12:40 >

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-anima-prefix-management-05

Thanks Dan. Good comments, and I think we can deal with them all quite easily when the Last Call expires. Regards Brian On 05/10/2017 20:40, Dan Romascanu wrote: > Reviewer: Dan Romascanu > Review result: Ready with Issues > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-grow-bgp-session-culling-04

Hi Matt, On 22/09/2017 07:08, Matt Griswold wrote: > * Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> [170921 14:19 +1200]: >> On 21/09/2017 12:13, Matt Griswold wrote: >>> * Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> [170918 21:44 >

Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-05

g appears to be after we understand the outcomes of > the current proposed of experiments, as they're likely to result in another > round of changes to RFC 3168. > > Many thanks, and chalk this up as one more instance where a GenART review has > visibly improved the quality of a draft,

Re: [Gen-art] draft-baeuerle-netnews-cancel-lock-06 and RFCs 5536 & 5322

> The question is: in the meantime, what to do about this draft? By > default I guess I will simply restate the issue in my genart telechat > review and leave it for the IESG discuss it. That's about all you can do. Of course if the IESG approves it anyway you can appeal that decision. I'm not

Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation-05

On 02/09/2017 09:45, Black, David wrote: > Brian, > > Thanks for the prompt review. > >> Comment: Very clear from the technical standpoint. > > Thank you! > >> I understand the desire for brevity, but this bothers me a bit. What is >> the reader to make of RFC3168 Section 20.2, for example?

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-trill-mtu-negotiation-05

Thanks, all those changes seem good to me. If I am asked to review the next version for the IESG telechat, I expect to say "Ready". Regards Brian On 27/06/2017 20:06, Zhangmingui (Martin) wrote: > Hi Brian and Donald, > > Thanks a lot for the comments. Please see the responses as inline

Re: [Gen-art] draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host

Ron > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com] > > Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 8:31 PM > > To: Brzozowski, John <john_brzozow...@comcast.com>; Ron Bonica

Re: [Gen-art] draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host

s/The Best Current Practice documented in this note is/The optional Best Current Practice documented in this note is/ Regards Brian On 06/05/2017 02:58, Ron Bonica wrote: > Gunter, > > Thanks much. A brief chat with Joel may clear this up. > >Ron > > >>

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-08

Stefano, I won't argue further about the general issues, they are really between you and the ADs. About this: ... >> Minor issue: >> >> >> The text of section 3 doesn't explain what requirements for SPRING it >> generates. Really it just describes what any IGP will do anyway. > >

Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-06

On 27/04/2017 08:08, Fred Baker wrote: > >> On Apr 26, 2017, at 11:35 AM, Joe Touch wrote: >> >> Hi, Stewart, >> >> >> On 4/26/2017 1:48 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 25/04/2017 19:26, Joe Touch wrote: Hi, Stewart, ... > SB> > SB> Otherwise I

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption-10

Looks good to me, thanks. Regards Brian On 27/02/2017 14:22, Mark Nottingham wrote: > [ editor hat ] > > That all seems reasonable to me; see: > > https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/ca56fd8365 > https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/commit/31c11b4683 > > Will

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-anima-grasp-09

CCs trimmed. Thanks Joel. Good comments, we will deal with all of them. We have some basic questions to answer first, raised by Charlie Perkins' review*, so it will take a little while. Regards Brian * https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/PlJ9SgdwT5mdOPqF2fDDIfAeHMQ On 26/02/2017

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04

On 17/02/2017 04:59, Stewart Bryant wrote: > > > On 14/02/2017 23:00, Templin, Fred L wrote: >> Unless there is operational assurance of >> some size X>1280, however, tunnels have to use fragmentation to >> guarantee that - at a minimum - packets up to 1280 will get through. > > In that case

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04

On 16/02/2017 10:12, Joe Touch wrote: > Brian (et al.), > > > On 2/10/2017 11:45 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> practice the >>> Internet breaks the mechanism. However it breaks it is a way that seems >>> disruptive to some user traffic. The document is

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04

On 10/02/2017 23:20, Stewart Bryant wrote: > > > On 10/02/2017 03:25, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> Stewart, >> >> On 10/02/2017 04:19, Stewart Bryant wrote: >> ... >>> I wonder if we would best serve both our future and our heritage >>> if we dec

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04

Stewart, On 10/02/2017 04:19, Stewart Bryant wrote: ... > I wonder if we would best serve both our future and our heritage > if we declared RFC1981 as historic, and either left the idea there, > or declared it as historic and wrote a new text from a clean start? I don't see that. It's a stable,

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-22

Hi Christer, On 06/02/2017 03:14, Christer Holmberg wrote: > Hi Brian, > > Thanks for your review! Please see inline. > > ... > > Comments: > - > >> Two points I noted in the writeup: >> "There are existing implementations of earlier versions of the document..." >> >> Excellent, but I

[Gen-art] Bounce test, please ignore

This is a test to see if a bounce problem has been resolved. Avri, if you get this via gen-art, but didn't get one from tianxiang li the problem has indeed been resolved. Brian ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org

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

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-17

FYI, I have checked the -18 draft that just appeared and it answers all my points. If asked to review it again, I expect to say "Ready". Thanks Brian Carpenter On 11/12/2016 11:39, Brian Carpenter wrote: > Reviewer: Brian Carpenter > Review result: Almost Ready > > Gen-ART Last Call review

Re: [Gen-art] [mpls] Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-mib-11

Fair enough. Regards Brian On 17/01/2017 08:13, BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A wrote: > Thanks Benoit- > > As Loa confirmed, we don't see this as an update. It's aligned with how we > have been doing the MPLS-TP work e.g. RFC7697 has the same wording. > > Thanks Brian for the careful review- >

Re: [Gen-art] email notifications in review tool?

On 18/12/2016 10:28, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > On 12/16/16 5:47 PM, A. Jean Mahoney wrote: >> You can configure Datatracker to send you a reminder about any >> outstanding reviews by going to the bottom of the following page: >> ​ >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/genart/reviews/ You need to be

[Gen-art] Review tool issue - email From

IMHO there's an important problem with the new tool: the review arrives with To: "General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)" From: IETF Secretariat Cc: draft-whatever@ietf.org So, if anybody just does Reply, it goes to ietf-secretariat-reply

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-adid-urn-01

Hi Jarrett, Thanks for your reply - follow-ups in line: On 29/11/2016 11:04, Jarrett Wold wrote: > Hi - > Thanks for the comments. Please see my responses. > > I used the EIDR draft as a template > (https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-pal-eidr-urn-00.txt). Ad-ID is similar, > but for

[Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-adid-urn-01

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] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon-12

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 of the draft. For more information, please

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-24

orrect, I would say that a normative reference to > draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-10 is not needed. RFC 4861 is a > normative reference in routing-cfg only because it defines the > configuration parameters, which doesn't mean that routing-cfg endorses > RFC 4861 as a whole. > &g

[Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-24

e my replies inline. > >> On 25 Oct 2016, at 01:07, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.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 >&

[Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-24

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] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model-17

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 of the draft. For more information, please

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model-16

; > -Qin > -邮件原件- > 发件人: stephane.litkow...@orange.com [mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com] > 发送时间: 2016年10月10日 16:29 > 收件人: Brian E Carpenter; draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model@ietf.org; > General Area Review Team; l...@ietf.org > 主题: RE: Gen-ART Last Call r

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model-16

[N.B. I have added the l3sm list but I am not subscribed] On 07/10/2016 20:46, stephane.litkow...@orange.com wrote: ... >>> 5.12.2.2. QoS profile ... > [SLI2] The current model supports classification based on generic DSCP > values. Isn't it enough ? Yes, I missed that. I agree, that seems

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model-16

features forever. > IMO, it's time to declare victory on this service YANG model. > > Regards, Benoit >> Hi Brian, >> >> More inline. >> >> Brgds, >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Th

[Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric-09

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 of the draft. For more information, please

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model-16

Stephane, Thanks for the response and the proposed updates. Some follow-up on a few points: On 06/10/2016 21:46, stephane.litkow...@orange.com wrote: ... >> 5.3.2.2.1. IP addressing > ... >>o slaac : enables stateless address autoconfiguration ([RFC4862]). >> This is applicable only

[Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model-16

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 telechat review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-09

Hi, Thanks for version -10. I appreciate the clarification to the title etc. (All the same, a BCP is just as mandatory as a Draft Standard. But it's a judgment call, of course.) Regards Brian Carpenter On 30/08/2016 07:50, Adamson, Andy wrote: > >> On Aug 26, 2016, at 1:10 AM

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon-08

rsion is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon-09 > > > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > Von: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com] > Gesendet: Montag, 29. August 2016 06:47 > An: draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-inte

[Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon-08

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] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-09

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 of the draft. For more information, please

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric-05

ot;do you need this?" not "you need this!"). It's confusing. Most times, it's not needed. I was in at the birth of that waiver; it drove me nuts that we had to allow for it. Brian > Thanks, > Acee > > On 8/8/16, 6:32 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpen.

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-clue-datachannel-13

lto:ali...@cooperw.in] > Sent: 09 August 2016 21:53 > To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmb...@ericsson.com> > Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>; > draft-ietf-clue-datachannel@ietf.org; General Area Review Team > <gen-art@ietf.org> > S

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric-05

ised by Brian (except > that "update" part). > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric-07 > > Thanks. > Jeffrey > >> -Original Message- >> From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com] >> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric-05

nits. > > On 8/6/16, 9:38 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.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

[Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-ospf-two-part-metric-05

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 Last Call review of draft-ietf-clue-datachannel-13

On 02/08/2016 09:47, Christer Holmberg wrote: > Hi Brian, > > Thanks for your review! Please see inline. > >> 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

[Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-clue-datachannel-13

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 Last Call review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-09

s Brian Carpenter http://orcid.org/-0001-7924-6182 On 12/07/2016 02:47, Adamson, Andy wrote: > >> On Jul 5, 2016, at 11:54 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General A

Re: [Gen-art] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 2016-07-08

Last Calls ending in the middle of an IETF week? Hate to say this, but my review is not going to happen on that timescale. I thought that the IESG policy was never to issue Last Calls on top of an IETF week. Brian On 09/07/2016 07:47, A. Jean Mahoney wrote: > Hi all, > > The following

[Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-multi-domain-fs-reqs-09

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] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-alto-deployments-15

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 of the draft. For more information, please

[Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-alto-deployments-15

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] I-D Action: draft-ietf-teas-interconnected-te-info-exchange-07.txt

Thank you for the latest changes. I think they clarify things very well. Regards Brian Carpenter On 22/05/2016 00:22, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Traffic Engineering

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >