Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option: Server Time

Hi, I’ll have a review of the changes shortly. Just wanted to acknowledge I’ve seen this mail ;) Thanks, Jouni > On Feb 21, 2017, at 10:12 AM, nalini.elk...@insidethestack.com wrote: > > I don't know why this email keeps getting cut off! > > I am attaching my response in a text

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ATR review of draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-07

> > BR > Daniele > >> -Original Message- >> From: jouni.nospam [mailto:jouni.nos...@gmail.com] >> Sent: martedì 18 ottobre 2016 08:23 >> To: Yemin (Amy) <amy.ye...@huawei.com> >> Cc: gen-art@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ATR review of draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-07

new SC and SCSI. But since > the conclusion is to use another different document, other than this document > to explain the technology specific usage(including the SC/SCSI allocation), > it’s preferred not to include the such text in this document. > > BR, > Amy > -Origina

Re: [Gen-art] gen-art review of draft-ietf-dprive-dnsodtls-12

Hi, Sorry for being under the radar. See my comments below. > On Nov 18, 2016, at 8:40 AM, Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) <tire...@cisco.com> > wrote: > >> -Original Message- >> From: jouni.nospam [mailto:jouni.nos...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Thursday, Nov

[Gen-art] gen-art review of draft-ietf-dprive-dnsodtls-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 treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at

[Gen-art] Gen-ATR review of draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-07

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-ATR review of draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-07

supported. - Jouni > For example, for the SCSI which supports TLV(e.g., OTN/WSON), a new type code > is needed to make use of availability TLV. > For the SCSI who doesn’t support TLV(e.g., PSC), a new SC types is needed. > > BR, > Amy > > -Original Message- > Fro

Re: [Gen-art] gen-art review of draft-ietf-dprive-dnsodtls-12

Thanks. > On Nov 28, 2016, at 9:50 PM, Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) <tire...@cisco.com> > wrote: > > Thanks, Jouni. Updated draft. > > -Tiru > >> -----Original Message- >> From: jouni.nospam [mailto:jouni.nos...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, N

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-elie-nntp-tls-recommendations-01

Hi Julien, What you propose below is what I was thinking about. So yes, OK with that. Thanks, Jouni > On Dec 7, 2016, at 1:19 PM, Julien ÉLIE wrote: > > Hi Jouni, > > First of all, thanks for having taken time to review the document. > > >> I think this

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option: Minor and editorial

oducts, Inc. > www.insidethestack.com > (831) 659-8360 > > > From: jouni.nospam <jouni.nos...@gmail.com> > To: nalini.elk...@insidethestack.com > Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>; > "draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option@ietf.org" &

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option: Minor and editorial

Hi, Thank you for the updates. I am fine with them. I still have one fundamental complaint. There is no discussion or definition of the message timestamp points. All this nanosecond or better accuracy, and the concern of truncation inaccuracy do not really matter if the message timestamp