Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-10-21
IETF LC End Date: 2011-10-24
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a BCP.
Major issues:
None
Minor issues:
None
Nits/editorial comments:
-- section 1, paragraph 2: ...can be recognised with high accuracy…
That seems like a bit more than
: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-10-12
IETF LC End Date: 2011-10-13
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an informational RFC. I
have a few minor questions and comments that may be worth addressing first.
Major issues:
None
Minor issues:
-- section 1, 2nd paragraph, last
Hi,
Thanks for the response. Some comments inline. I removed sections that seem to
be resolved.
Thanks!
Ben.
On Oct 7, 2011, at 6:21 PM, Luca Martini wrote:
Ben,
Thank you for the review .
Some comments below.
Luca
On 10/04/11 16:13, Ben Campbell wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-10-04
IETF LC End Date: 2011-10-05
Summary: The draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard, but
there are a few minor issues and editorial issues that need addressing first.
Major issues:
None
Minor issues:
-- 5.3:
Has the work group
-mib-10
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-10-03
IESG Telechat date: 2011-10-06
Summary: This draft may be ready for publication as a draft standard. All of
the substantive comments from my last call review have been addressed either in
the draft or in email. I do have one new
Thanks, Adrian--that makes sense.
Ben.
On Oct 3, 2011, at 1:09 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi Ben,
Thanks for the review.
Minor issues:
-- Section 7, first paragraph: During the review of this document, It
emerged
that there are different possible interpretations of [RFC5798]. The
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-09-29
IETF LC End Date: 2011-09-21
Summary:
This draft is ready for publication as an informational RFC
Major issues:
None
Minor issues:
None
Nits/editorial comments:
-- Abstract:
The abstract should mention that this updates 6292.
-- section 3, last
On Sep 9, 2011, at 3:02 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
Hi,
thanks, Ben. We will incorporate most of your suggestions in the next
revision. That said:
On 2011-9-8, at 0:22, Ben Campbell wrote:
-- Section 6 suggests side meetings should be (somehow informally) covered
by NOTE WELL. I think
On Sep 9, 2011, at 8:01 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
-- Section 6 suggests side meetings should be (somehow informally) covered
by NOTE WELL. I think this is a very dangerous suggestion. The rest of the
document suggests that a side meeting has no official standing. That seems to
me to mean it's
On Sep 9, 2011, at 9:07 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
but I guess I'm looking for a way that someone could explicitly choose to
have a meeting
where Note Well did not apply.
I agree, and I hope my suggested text says that. If more needs to be
said, we (for some value of we that might mean Lars
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-09-07
IETF LC End Date: 2011-09-08
Summary: This draft is nearly ready for publication as an informational RFC,
but has some open issues
Major issues:
-- I share some of the concerns of other last call commenters, in that an RFC
is written in stone
in the process.
On Jun 17, 2011, at 5:10 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting
and may be unlawful. If you
have received this message in error, please delete it, and do not distribute
or retain a copy of it.
-Original Message-
From: Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@nostrum.com]
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 5:41 PM
To: draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter
Thanks for the response. One further comment below. I removed sections that I
think have been sufficiently addressed:
On Aug 17, 2011, at 2:45 PM, Zafar Ali (zali) wrote:
[…]
-- section 3: First paragraph: Addition of non-PHP behavior adds a
variable of attacks on the label assigned by the
-no-php-oob-mapping-09
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-08-22
IESG Telechat date: 2011-08-25
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a proposed standard. This
version addresses the editorial comments from my previous review, except for
one that I understand from separate email
-mapping
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-08-12
IETF LC End Date: 2011-08-12
Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard.
There are a few editorial issues and nits that should be considered prior to
publication.
Major issues:
None
Minor issues:
None
Nits
On Aug 10, 2011, at 1:35 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Disagree. The caveat is that we are defining something different. We are
looking
at the case where we want to know that it is safe to start sending data. We
are
using the existence of some SHOULD statements in related RFCs that describe
-05
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-07-14
IETF LC End Date: 2011-07-18
Summary: Ready for publication as an informational RFC
Major issues:
None
Minor issues:
None
Nits/editorial comments:
-- section 1, paragraph 4: ...with relation to the programming...
... in relation
:
Ben,
Are you referring to the title (Update to the DNAME...)? Then yes, that
could be confusing - that was missed in the revision.
Would trimming the title to the shorter DNAME Redirection in the DNS fix
that? It's the simplest fix.
Scott
On Jun 24, 2011, at 6:18 PM, Ben Campbell
-bis draft has been posted with the two
sections re-added (resolver algorithm and examples of DNAME use). I haven't
heard any comments from the DNSEXT WG on it, but it was only just posted.
Scott
On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:50 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
Thanks for the response! Comments below
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-06-17
IETF LC End Date: 2011-06-20
IESG Telechat date: 2011-06-23
Summary:
The draft is essentially ready for publication as an informational RFC. I have
a few editorial comments that may be worth considering prior to final
publication.
Major issues: None
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may
receive.
Document: draft-law-rfc4869bis-01
Reviewer: Ben
-diameter-08
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-06-17
IESG Telechat date: 2011-06-23
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard. I
still have a concern about the generation of the PSK.
Major issues:
In my initial Gen-ART review, I made the following comment
. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may
receive.
Document: draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-07
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-06
.
As for the nits:
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Ben Campbell b...@nostrum.com wrote:
[...]
Yes, will correct.
-- ..., 7th paragraph: ...replaced with the word DELETED.
Won't that just leave the word deleted hanging on page without explanation?
Wouldn't it be better to just
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-06-07
IETF LC End Date:2011-06-09
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary:
This draft does not seem to be quite ready for publication, in that it
professes to obsolete RFC 2672, but does not cover all the material from that
RFC or explain the absence
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-06-03
IETF LC End Date: 2011-06-03
Summary:
This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard. I have a
question concerning the procedure for generating PSKs, and a number of minor
and editorial comments.
Major issues:
The draft says
-data-model-27
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-05-24
IESG Telechat date: 2011-05-26
Summary:
This draft is ready for publication as a proposed standard.
Note: I performed a Gen-ART review of version 23 at IETF Last Call. This review
is incremental to that one. This version addresses all
: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-05-10
IETF LC End Date:2011-05-11
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a draft standard. I have a few
editorial comments that might be worth considering, but probably should not
block publication.
Note: I am inexpert both
/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may
receive.
Document: draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-09
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-05-10
IETF LC End Date:2011-05-11
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This draft is ready
-5953.txt
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-04-29
IETF LC End Date: 2011-05-03
Summary: RFC5591 is likely ready to progress to draft standard. However, there
are some features of the RFC for which it is not clear to me if they have been
sufficiently tested.
Major issues:
None
Minor issues
you may
receive.
Document: RFC5591 and report-rfc5343-5590-5591-5953.txt
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-04-29
IETF LC End Date: 2011-05-03
Summary: RFC5591 is likely ready to progress to draft standard. However, there
are some features of the RFC for which it is not clear to me
: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-04-22
IETF LC End Date: 2011-04-28
IESG Telechat date: 2011-04-28
Summary:
This draft is almost ready for publication as an informational RFC. I have a
small number of minor issue comments that should be considered prior to
publication.
Major issues:
None
Minor
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-04-11
IETF LC End Date: 2011-04-15
Summary: This draft is essentially ready for publication as an informational
RFC. I have a couple of editorial comments that should be considered prior to
final publication.
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-03-15
IESG Telechat date: 2011-03-17
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a proposed standard.
Major issues:
None
Minor issues:
None
Nits/editorial comments:
IDNits still emits some minor warnings and comments--please check.
-- Security
On Mar 9, 2011, at 6:01 AM, Oscar Novo wrote:
Hi Ben,
More comments inline as [ON1]. :)
-Original Message-
From: Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@estacado.net]
Sent: 8. maaliskuuta 2011 23:14
To: Oscar Novo
Cc: draft-ietf-xcon-common-data-model@tools.ietf.org; General Area Review
: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-03-09
IETF LC End Date: 2011-03-09
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This draft is essentially ready for publication as a proposed
standard. I have a few minor comments that might be worth considering prior to
final publication.
Major issues:
None
Minor
: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-03-09
IETF LC End Date: 2011-03-09
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This draft is essentially ready for publication as a proposed
standard. I have a few minor comments that might be worth considering prior to
final publication.
Major issues:
None
Minor
. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may
receive.
Document: draft-ietf-xcon-common-data-model-23
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-03-04
IETF LC End
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-03-04
IETF LC End Date: 2011-03-04
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard. I
have a few minor comments that should be considered prior to publication.
Note: This draft makes extensive
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-03-01
IETF LC End Date: 2011-03-02
IESG Telechat date: 2011-03-03
(Note: The Last Call deadline and the Telechat are only a day apart, so this
review serves both purpose)
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an experimental RFC. I have a
few nit
Update: I looked at the diffs for version 20, and I think the discussion below
accurately reflect the changes--so please consider this a followup review of
version 20.
Thanks!
Ben.
On Feb 16, 2011, at 5:15 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
Thanks for the quick response. I haven't had a chance to look
14, 2011, at 4:43 PM, Anthony Bryan wrote:
[...]
was there supposed to be a comment along with
-- section 2, 4th paragraph: HTTP mirror servers SHOULD share the
same ETag policy as the originating Metalink server.
?
I responded to this one below.
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Ben
: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-02-11
IETF LC End Date: 2011-02-11
Summary:
This document is on the right track for a proposed standard, but there are open
issues and editorial issues that should be addressed prior to publication.
--- Major issues:
none.
--- Minor issues:
-- Section 1
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2010-01-31
IETF LC End Date: 2010-01-31
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary:
This draft is effectively ready for publication as an informational RFC. I have
some minor comments, nits. and editorial comments that may be worth considering
prior to final
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may
receive.
Document: draft-ietf-ltans-xmlers-08
Reviewer: Ben
for the draft is
incorrect. In either case, something is broken somewhere.
Thanks!
Ben.
On Jan 6, 2011, at 5:32 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq
Thanks for the quick response. Also see below. I elided sections that I think
have been addressed.
On Dec 22, 2010, at 5:44 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) wrote:
Ben,
Thank you for your comments. Please see below.
Best regards
Matthew
On 21/12/2010 22:13, Ben Campbell b
Thanks for the response. Further comments below. I elided sections that I think
have been addressed.
On Dec 15, 2010, at 4:30 AM, Stuart Cheshire wrote:
[..]
-- 8.1, 4th paragraph: 250ms after the first query the host should send a
second, then 250ms after that a third. If, by 250ms after
: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2010-12-21
IETF LC End Date: 2010-12-23
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as in informational RFC. I have a
small number of editorial comments that I think could further improve the draft
if there is another round of editing
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2010-12-03
IETF LC End Date: 2010-12-16
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a BCP. I have a few
questions and comments that I think should be considered first, as well as a
few editorial comments.
*** Major issues:
-- [ Not so much a major
See note below:
On Nov 23, 2010, at 8:49 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2010-11-23
IETF LC End Date: 2010-11-23
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This draft is (probably) almost ready for publication, but I have
several comments and questions that I think should be addressed prior to
publication.
-- General Comment:
I'm sure
Update: The author communicated with me off-list that he had in fact cleared
the co-author removal with the affected parties, so I withdraw that comment.
Thanks!
Ben.
On Oct 18, 2010, at 4:19 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen
-map-08
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 18 Oct 2010
IESG Telechat date: 21 Oct 2010
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a proposed standard.
This version addresses all of the comments from my review of version 07 at IETF
LC.
Major Issues: None
Minor Issues: None
Nits
[As SIMPLE co-chair]
draft-ietf-simple-msrp-sessmatch has some significant additions from the
version for which we originally requested publication. I implore everyone who
cares one way or another about this draft to re-review it as soon as they are
able.
Thanks!
Ben.
On Oct 15, 2010, at
On Oct 14, 2010, at 12:19 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
On the general clarity, I also have to say that I believe that the document
tipped over the diff line somewhere. That is, as a set of edits it is now
sufficiently complex that it would almost certainly be better to apply
the edits and re-spin
Hi Adrian,
Are you referring to the COMEDIA support in msrp-acm, the session matching
change in msrp-sessmatch, or both?
Thanks!
Ben.
On Oct 14, 2010, at 5:26 PM, Adrian Georgescu wrote:
My two cents. Having implemented both models in Blink client (Blink is a free
download if someone
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2010-10-11
IETF LC End Date: 2010-10-11
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary:
This draft is almost ready to be published as a proposed standard, but I have
some comments that should be considered first.
Major issues: None
Minor issues:
-- General:
(Let me
-
From: Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@nostrum.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 8:55 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: draft-ietf-isis-genapp@tools.ietf.org; General Area Review
Team; The IETF
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC/Telechat Review of draft-ietf-isis-genapp-
03.txt
On Oct 6, 2010
.txt
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 05 Oct 2010
IESG Telechat date: 07 Oct 2010
Summary:
The draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard, but I have
some concerns that I think should be addressed first.
Major issues:
-- This draft creates an expansion code point
Thanks for the quick response. Comments inline:
On Oct 6, 2010, at 7:55 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
Ben -
Thanx for the review.
Inline.
-Original Message-
From: Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@nostrum.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 12:06 PM
To: draft-ietf-isis-genapp
On Oct 6, 2010, at 10:14 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
[...]
From RFC 5226:
Specification Required - Values and their meanings must be
documented in a permanent and readily available public
specification, in sufficient detail so that
interoperability
I further note that schis...@nortel.com gets bounced by Nortel as a
non-existant address. Is there an updated address?
On Sep 7, 2010, at 4:04 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http
I wanted to make a quick response to one part of this discussion--see below:
On Aug 31, 2010, at 12:39 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
To highlight one particular aspect, RFC 4975 does not require
session-ids to be present, a fact noted both in the ABNF and in this
text:
4. The session-id
(as individual)
On Sep 2, 2010, at 8:37 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
Hi Cullen,
Do these changes allow an SBC on the signaling path to change the contents
of the MSRP messages
without the end points being able to detect that? I'm sure it will be easier
to answer this once we have
a
: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2010-09-07
IETF LC End Date: 2010-09-07
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: The draft is basically ready for publication as a proposed standard. I
have a few editorial comments and nits that should be considered if there is
another revision.
Note: This draft delves
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2010-08-31
IETF LC End Date: 2010-08-31
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary:
This draft is almost ready for publication as an experimental RFC. There are
some minor issues that should be considered first, and a few editorial comments.
-Major issues: None
-Minor
-implementation-report-02
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 11 Aug 2010
IESG Telechat date: 12 Aug 2010
Note: I apologize for the lateness of this review. I just came back from a
post-IETF vacation, and failed to notice the assignment until this afternoon.
Furthermore, I failed to review it at IETF LC
-ietf-forces-implementation-report-02 Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 11 Aug 2010
IESG Telechat date: 12 Aug 2010
Note: I apologize for the lateness of this review. I just came back from a
post-IETF vacation, and failed to notice the assignment until this
afternoon. Furthermore, I failed
Sorry for the late response--I just got back online after being out a few days
for surgery.
Your response addresses my (final) concern.
Thanks!
Ben.
On Jul 16, 2010, at 9:29 AM, Bob Briscoe wrote:
Ben,
At 20:47 14/07/2010, Ben Campbell wrote:
Thanks for the response. Further comments
: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2010-07-22
IETF LC End Date: 2010-08-06 (Wow, I'm early for a change!)
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an informational RFC.
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
-- Section 1, last paragraph, last
responses, which are inline...
There is just one outstanding question for you concerning updating BCP4774...
At 22:23 01/07/2010, Ben Campbell wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki
-tunnel-08
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2010-07-01
IETF LC End Date: 2010-07-06
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary:
This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard. I
have a couple of procedural questions that should be considered
first, as well as a few
: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2010-07-01
IETF LC End Date: 2010-07-06
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary:
This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard. I have a
couple of procedural questions that should be considered first, as well as a
few editorial comments.
Major Issues
Hi, Jari,
See comments inline:
On Jun 26, 2010, at 4:11 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Thanks for your review, Ben!
-- 5.3.1, last paragraph: In the case where the DNS options of RDNSS and
DNSSL can be obtained
from multiple sources, such as RA and DHCP, the IPv6 host can keep
some DNS options
Also, I answered your comments inline as below:
-Original Message-
From: Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@nostrum.com]
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 5:08 PM
To: draft-ietf-6man-dns-options-bis@tools.ietf.org
Cc: General Area Review Team; IETF Discussion
Subject: Gen-ART LC Review
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2010-06-21
IETF LC End Date: 2010-06-23
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary:
This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard. However,
there are some issues, both substantive and editorial, that should be
considered prior to publication.
Major
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-hip-bone-06
Reviewer: Ben
-per-sctp-stream-07
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 1 June 2010
IESG Telechat date: 3 June 2010
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a draft standard.
Note: This version resolves all of my concerns from my review of version 03.
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial
I traveled through Schipol last January. My Visa debit card (with PIN) worked
at the human counter with the PIN Cards Only sign. It was later refused at a
different station, but I think that was a matter of an untrained attendant more
than a technology failure. (He expected a chip.)
On May 9,
: draft-ietf-nsis-nslp-natfw-24
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 16 April 2010
IESG Telechat date: 22 April 2010
Summary: Ready for publication as an experimental RFC. I have a couple of very
minor editorial comments remaining from my last call review that you may
consider, but probably
-additional-cms-ri-choices-03
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2010-04-16
IETF LC End Date: 2010-04-19
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: Very close to ready for publication as a proposed standard. I have a
couple of mainly editorial questions.
Note: This draft contains ASN.1 definitions. I
: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-types-08
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 16 April 2010
IESG Telechat date: 22 April 2010
Summary: Ready for publication as a proposed standard
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments: None
___
Ietf
Hi, thanks for the response. Comments inline. I removed sections for issues
that I think are closed:
On Apr 9, 2010, at 6:53 AM, Martin Stiemerling wrote:
[...]
-- section 3.2.8, transitory bullet: When a node has received a
NOTIFY message, it
marks the signaling session as
Thanks, this addresses all of my concerns. Additional comments below.
On Apr 13, 2010, at 6:55 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 10:59:36PM +0200, Ben Campbell wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background
-netmod-yang-types-07
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2010-04-06
IETF LC End Date: 2010-04-09
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard.
There are a few minor issues that might should be considered prior to
publication.
Major issues
of the draft will be submitted in the next few days.
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of ext Ben Campbell
Sent: 09 March, 2010 18:00
To: Rohan Mahy; Brian Rosen; Hannes Tschofenig; General Area
Review Team
Cc: Cullen Jennings
On Mar 21, 2010, at 3:12 PM, Thomson, Martin wrote:
Ben wrote:
There's a few ways to handle that:
1) Treat rate-control as an informative reference, and say you're doing
something mostly like rate control, but not quite identical. That would
require quite a bit more normative language
, and the geopriv-loc-filters draft recommends empty notifies in the
same situation.
-Original Message-
From: ext Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@estacado.net]
Sent: 21 March, 2010 18:23
To: Thomson, Martin
Cc: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo); aki.ni...@nokia.com;
krisztian.k...@nokia.com
On Mar 21, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Thomson, Martin wrote:
So, the rate control does recognize that the first notify message can be
empty or might not contain all state:
$3.2: Thus, the first notification might be empty, or certain values might
be absent.
The text that was originally
-nslp-natfw-23
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2010-03-15
IETF LC End Date: 2010-03-12
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
[Apologies for the tardiness of this review. I somehow missed the assignment
until after the LC completed.]
Summary:
This draft is almost ready for publication
: draft-ietf-geopriv-loc-filters-10
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 9 March 2010
IESG Telechat date: 11 March 2010
Note: Since the IETF LC end-date and the telechat are only a day apart, I
intend for this review to serve for both purposes.
Summary:
This draft is almost ready for publication
: draft-ietf-ipfix-export-per-sctp-stream-06
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 1 March 2010
IESG Telechat date: 4 March 2010
Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard,
but there is an open issue that should be considered first.
Major issues:
-- section 4.5
: draft-ietf-ecrit-location-hiding-req-02
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 16 Feb 2010
IESG Telechat date: 18 Feb 2010
Summary: This draft is really close to ready for publication as an
informational RFC. I have one unaddressed editorial comment, which on
reflection I am promoting to a minor
your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
Document: draft-ietf-ecrit-location-hiding-req-02
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 16 Feb 2010
IESG Telechat date: 18 Feb 2010
Summary: This draft is really close to ready for publication as an
informational RFC. I have one
This is an update of my review of draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-spc-rsvpte-ext-06, based
on the newly released version 07.
Updated Summary: Ready for publication. (I said draft standard the first
time-but this is intended as a proposed standard, right?)
Major Issues: None
Minor Issues: None
-rmt-flute-revised-10
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2010-02-10
IETF LC End Date: 2010-02-10
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard.
However, I have some comments that should be addressed first.
Note: The last call notice asked
: draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-spc-rsvpte-ext-06
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 1 Feb 2010
IESG Telechat date: 4 Feb 2010
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a draft standard, but I
think there are a few issues that need clarification first, as well as some
editorial issues.
Note
.
Document: draft-ietf-idnabis-rationale-15
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 06 Jan 2010
IESG Telechat date: 07 Jan 2010
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an informational RFC.
Note: This review is incremental to my Gen-art last call review on version 13.
All of my comments from
101 - 200 of 305 matches
Mail list logo
