Thanks.
I will take care of your comments as part of the next revision.
-Original Message-
From: Dan Romascanu [mailto:droma...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2018 15:29
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org;
Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
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
Robert, thanks for your reviews of this document. I’ve flagged some of your
specific comments in my ballot. I entered a DISCUSS ballot to ensure that RFC
2119 and RFC 8174 get changed to normative references.
Thanks,
Alissa
> On Dec 13, 2018, at 6:12 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
>
> Reviewer:
Peter, thanks for your review. Erik, thanks for the updates. I have entered a
No Objection ballot.
Alissa
> On Nov 20, 2018, at 4:06 PM, Erik Wilde wrote:
>
> hello.
>
> thanks, peter, for your review!
>
> On 2018-11-20 17:21, Peter Yee wrote:
>> Page 8, Section 7: RFC 2223 requires you do
Russ, thanks for your review. Vishnu, thanks for your responses. I entered a No
Objection ballot.
Alissa
> On Dec 10, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
>
> Yes, those changes resolve my comments.
>
> Russ
>
>
>> On Dec 10, 2018, at 12:57 AM, Vishnu Pavan Beeram >
Jari, thank you for your review. Erik, thanks for the updates. I entered a No
Objection ballot.
Alissa
> On Nov 30, 2018, at 1:17 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>
> Sounds good. Thanks.
>
> Jari
>
> ___
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
>
Mohmad to comment.
Dino
> On Dec 18, 2018, at 8:49 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>
> That is the other fix he offered. Just remove the updates tag.
> I will leav eit to you and the the authors to determine which is correct.
> Yours,
> Joel
>
> On 12/18/18 11:43 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>>
8113bis should say that is it *extending* the type field so we can have more
types. The word “update” I always had a problem with because it can be
interpreted as “replacing". Replacing something to fix a problem.
8113 is simply asking for one of the type value codepoint, so there can be
Authors: that sounds like a reasonable addition to me?
Yours,
Joel
On 12/18/18 10:48 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
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
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 along with everything else. It seemed (and is) simpler
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review result: Ready with Issues
Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-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
That is the other fix he offered. Just remove the updates tag.
I will leav eit to you and the the authors to determine which is correct.
Yours,
Joel
On 12/18/18 11:43 PM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
8113bis should say that is it *extending* the type field so we can have more types.
The word
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
