Re: [Gen-art] [DMM] Review of draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-04

Hello Dale, O.K. I will take a crack at making this reorganization. If you have text of course that will be appreciated. Right now I don't see why anyone in the WG would object, but I hope at least some people will take a look. I can have the revised draft ready in a few days. I think

Re: [Gen-art] [DMM] Review of draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-04

HI Dale, Thanks again for the comments. Please see inline. On 2/13/17, 8:55 AM, "Dale R. Worley" wrote: >"Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" writes: >> When we discussed this issue in the past, the general feedback from >> the WG was that the draft should

Re: [Gen-art] [DMM] Review of draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-04

Charlie Perkins writes: > I am hesitant to replace so many MNID types by a single URN type with > substructure. What would you think about replacing the existing > RFID-*-URI types with a single URN type, but leaving the existing binary > types? This gets the

Re: [Gen-art] [DMM] Review of draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-04

Hello Dale, Follow-up below... On 2/12/2017 7:13 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote: There is a sort of "hidden" disadvantage to long names, especially for tiny devices using constrained link layers. Namely, a longer name makes it more likely to require lower-layer fragmentation. I'm not sure that

Re: [Gen-art] [DMM] Review of draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-04

"Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" writes: > When we discussed this issue in the past, the general feedback from > the WG was that the draft should provide some minimal amount of > details on the new identifier types, what the identifier is, how the > identifier is constructed, what

Re: [Gen-art] [DMM] Review of draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-04

Hi Charlie, Please see inline. From: dmm > on behalf of Charlie Perkins > Date: Friday, February 10, 2017 at 2:28 PM To: Dale Worley

Re: [Gen-art] [DMM] Review of draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-04

Hi Charlie, > On Feb 10, 2017, at 10:30 AM, Charlie Perkins > wrote: > > Hello folks, > > The last two days have been crammed full with other urgent work requirements. > I will respond to these comments today. Great. > > Suresh, do you mean to ask if I can

Re: [Gen-art] [DMM] Review of draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-04

Hello folks, The last two days have been crammed full with other urgent work requirements. I will respond to these comments today. Suresh, do you mean to ask if I can submit a revised document before Monday? Regards, Charlie P. On 2/10/2017 6:17 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote: Hi Charlie,

Re: [Gen-art] [DMM] Review of draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-04

Hi Charlie, I have not yet seen a response to this review. Do you think you will be able to get to this in the next day or two? The document is on the February 16 2017 telechat and I would like to see resolution to these issues in time for the other ADs to ballot. Thanks Suresh On 2/2/17,

Re: [Gen-art] [DMM] Review of draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-04

Hello Sri, The review was indeed super. I'll respond sometime in the next few days. Regards, Charlie P. On 2/1/2017 9:09 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: Thank you Dale for a great review. Charlie/Authors - Can you please respond to Dale and address these comments. Regards Sri On

Re: [Gen-art] [DMM] Review of draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-04

Thank you Dale for a great review. Charlie/Authors - Can you please respond to Dale and address these comments. Regards Sri On 1/31/17, 11:34 AM, "dmm on behalf of Dale Worley" wrote: >Reviewer: Dale Worley >Review result: Ready with