> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 8:35 PM
> To: Robert Sparks
> Cc: Dongjie (Jimmy); General Area Review Team; p...@ietf.org;
> draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02
>
> Robert, Jimmy,
>
> T
Jari,
(I removed some of the the cc:s for this reply).
Thanks, that’s exactly the case, the IPR was announced in November 2012,
prior to the PWE3 WG adoption poll.
I think you just uncovered a tools page bug. Looking at the datatracker,
the replaced-by information is correct through the draft’s
Robert:
Many thanks for your detailed review. I will send some technical comments on
this
topic but wanted to answer you and Andrew on the IPR issue separately:
Robert wrote:
> That happens sometimes, but it's much better to have a real indication
> that the group considered the disclosure and
> Yes, the tools servers don't currently follow replaces the same way the
> datatracker does.
> Henrik is aware of it, and is working to make them say the same thing.
Cool, thanks!
Jari
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
On 10/22/15 5:15 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
But in this case I noticed that
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe/ shows
1 IPR whereas
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02 does
not. But
Robert, Jimmy,
Thanks for the review & discussion.
From my perspective some of the things that Robert raises are very valid
questions. The particular item that I’m perhaps most interested in is the
text in Section 3.2, which seems like explaining what happens in an example,
but it also uses
Hi Robert,
Thanks for your comments, please see my replies inline:
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjspa...@nostrum.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 11:10 AM
> To: Dongjie (Jimmy); General Area Review Team; p...@ietf.org;
>
Hi Robert,
Thanks a lot for your review and comments. Please see my replies inline:
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert Sparks
> Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 5:31 AM
> To: General Area Review Team; i...@ietf.org; p...@ietf.org;
>
On 10/19/15 9:34 PM, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote:
Hi Robert,
Thanks a lot for your review and comments. Please see my replies inline:
-Original Message-
From: ietf [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert Sparks
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 5:31 AM
To: General Area Review
Robert,
Thanks for your review of the draft.
As PALS WG co-chair, I would like to address one point in your review:
There is a process issue that the IESG should pay attention to. The
> shepherd writeup says this: "There is one IPR declaration (1911) raised in
> November 2012 against an early
Hi Robert,
Thanks for your review. As Andy explained, in the Routing Area, there are
multiple points in the process where folks are made aware/reminded of IPR and
we follow RFC6702 suggestions. And for folks not participating actively in the
Working Group, they still have the opportunity at
11 matches
Mail list logo
