is it important to pay when you register if the fee is based on the payment
day?
Roni Even
-Original Message-
From: ietf [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 7:20 PM
To: i...@ietf.org; ietf-announce@ietf.org
Subject: Planned changes
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2013-10-12
IETF LC End Date: 2013-10-16
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
...@gmail.com]
Sent: 07 September, 2013 10:41 AM
To: Roni Even
Cc: draft-ietf-repute-model@tools.ietf.org; ietf; General Area Review
Team
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-repute-model-08
Hi Roni, sorry again for the delay.
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 4:27 AM, Roni Even ron.even
in
the document.
Roni Even
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
other email
Roni
-Original Message-
From: Mach Chen [mailto:mach.c...@huawei.com]
Sent: 29 August, 2013 11:33 AM
To: Roni Even; draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-
ping@tools.ietf.org
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; gen-...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of
draft-ietf-mpls
Roni
-Original Message-
From: Mach Chen [mailto:mach.c...@huawei.com]
Sent: 29 August, 2013 1:05 PM
To: Roni Even; draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-
ping@tools.ietf.org
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; gen-...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of
draft-ietf-mpls-return-path
Hi,
This is OK . I have no concerns
Roni
-Original Message-
From: Loa Andersson [mailto:l...@pi.nu]
Sent: 29 August, 2013 2:46 PM
To: Roni Even
Cc: 'Mach Chen'; draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-
ping@tools.ietf.org; gen-...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Gen-ART
of section 2 and I am not sure that the return path ping is
influenced since it does not use all the sub-tlv from tlv type 1 so it
should be a separate registry
Roni
-Original Message-
From: t.p. [mailto:daedu...@btconnect.com]
Sent: 29 August, 2013 6:33 PM
To: Roni Even; draft-ietf-mpls-return
-ping-12
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2013-8-28
IETF LC End Date: 2013-9-4
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standard track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
I am not clear on the sub-TLV in section 6.2
1. If a new sub-TLV
Hi Loa,
See inline
Roni
-Original Message-
From: Loa Andersson [mailto:l...@pi.nu]
Sent: 28 August, 2013 5:20 PM
To: Roni Even
Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping@tools.ietf.org;
gen-
a...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of
draft-ietf-mpls
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-repute-model-07
Reviewer: Roni
-as-instanceid-10
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2013-8-5
IETF LC End Date: 2013-8-16
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Why is it going to be an Informational RFC, considering that there is a lot
: Roni Even
Review Date:2013-6-30
IETF LC End Date: 2013-7-23
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as Standard track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
In section 1 you reference TLS 1.0 and 1.1 usage based on RFC 4492. What
about TLS 1.2 usage
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-pkix-est-07
Reviewer: Roni
my answer below prefixed with [SV].
From: ext Roni Even [mailto:ron.even@gmail.com]
Sent: 29. toukokuuta 2013 21:13
To: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps@tools.ietf.org
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; gen-...@ietf.org
Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-05
Roni,
Please see my answer below prefixed with [SV].
From: ext Roni Even [mailto:ron.even@gmail.com]
Sent: 29. toukokuuta 2013 21:13
To: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps@tools.ietf.org
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; gen-...@ietf.org
Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp
-05
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2013-5-29
IETF LC End Date: 2013-6-4
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as Standard track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
1. I can understand from the draft that when you have IP and PSTN
nettype
of draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-10
Hi,
Roni Even ron.even@gmail.com wrote:
Martin,
Thanks for the response. I am OK with your responses to the nits.
As for the comment on location I think I understand but what got me
thinking was the examples.
In E.1
An operator can configure a new
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2013-4-28
IETF LC End Date: 2013-5-3
IESG Telechat date: 2013-5-16
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as Standard track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
1. I had some problem understanding the location leaf. Section 3.2
has
. Comments inline.
Roni Even ron.even@gmail.com 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 comments
you may
-nets-03
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2013-4-6
IETF LC End Date: 2013-4-12
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
1. I found this draft very informational but I
-nets-03
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2013-4-6
IETF LC End Date: 2013-4-12
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
1. I found this draft very informational but I
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2013-3-25
IETF LC End Date: 2013-3-26
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
1. In table 1 the Transform ID are specified as TBD1 to TBD4. I
noticed that IANA
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-ancp-pon-04
Reviewer: Roni
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2013-2-13
IETF LC End Date: 2013-2-28
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2013-1-21
IETF LC End Date: 2013-2-14
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as Standard track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
: Roni Even
Review Date:2013-1-15
IETF LC End Date: 2013-1-22
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as Standard track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
1. I had some problem when reading the document about what is
mandatory to support
-encoding-02
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2012-12-17
IETF LC End Date: 2012-12-14
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as Standard track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2012-12-16
IETF LC End Date: 2012-12-25
IESG Telechat date: 2013-1-10
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
1. The document has as the intended status Informational while the
last call says
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2012-10-17
IETF LC End Date: 2012-11-6
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standard track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
1. It is not clear from the draft what the use case for using the group
construct
Andy,
Thanks
Roni
From: Malis, Andrew G (Andy) [mailto:andrew.g.ma...@verizon.com]
Sent: 09 October, 2012 2:55 AM
To: Roni Even; draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc5787bis@tools.ietf.org
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; gen-...@ietf.org; Malis, Andrew G (Andy)
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ccamp
Andy,
Thanks,
I am OK
Roni
From: Malis, Andrew G (Andy) [mailto:andrew.g.ma...@verizon.com]
Sent: 09 October, 2012 2:55 AM
To: Roni Even; draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc5787bis@tools.ietf.org
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; gen-...@ietf.org; Malis, Andrew G (Andy)
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2012-9-25
IETF LC End Date: 2012-10-3
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a standard track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
1. In section 3.1 Duplicate Address Dectection should
Hi,
One request about IETF 110 21 - 26 March 2021.
March 27 is Jewish Passover (Pesach) so the 26th will not work for those who
observe this major Holiday
Roni Even
From: wgchairs-boun...@ietf.org [wgchairs-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of IETF
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2012-8-22
IETF LC End Date: 2012-8-29
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a standard track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
1. At the end of section 3.7 and 3.8 acton should
.
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2012-8-12
IETF LC End Date: 2012-8-17
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standard track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
In section 6.1 If specified more than once, instances preceding the first
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-ipfix-ie-doctors-03.
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2012-7-15
IETF LC End Date: 2012-7-17
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication
-in-ipfix-09
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2012-7-15
IETF LC End Date: 2012-7-19
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2012-6-28
IETF LC End Date: 2012-7-13
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
In the section 2 the second sentence is The initial content for the Tao web
page will come from
should be specified since it
appears as Reserved in the registry. I have no specific suggestion
Roni
From: Paul Sangster [mailto:paul_sangs...@symantec.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 7:56 PM
To: Roni Even; draft-ietf-nea-pt-tls@tools.ietf.org
Cc: 'IETF'; gen-...@ietf.org; n
: Roni Even
Review Date:2012-6-4
IETF LC End Date: 2012-6-13
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standard track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
1. In section 3.2 Therefore, this specification requests the IANA
reserve a TCP port number
Hi Benoit,
Your proposals are OK with me
Roni
From: Benoit Claise [mailto:bcla...@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 2:11 AM
To: Roni Even
Cc: draft-claise-export-application-info-in-ipfix@tools.ietf.org;
gen-...@ietf.org; 'IETF'; me
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of
draft-claise
.
Document: draft-claise-export-application-info-in-ipfix-05
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2012-4-7
IETF LC End Date: 2012-4-17
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
In sections 2, 4.1 (PANA-L7), 5
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2012-5-20
IETF LC End Date: 2012-5-28
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a standard track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
1. MUA is used but not expanded.
.
Document: draft-ietf-ancp-pon-02
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2012-4-1
IETF LC End Date: 2012-3-30
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
In section 4 However
suggest you ask it in a way that allows you to
accurately answer the question asked in the PROTO template.
Barry, incoming Applications AD
Original Message
From: Stephan Wenger [mailto:st...@stewe.org]
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 7:03 PM
To: Roni Even; 'IETF AVTCore
-analysis-03
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2012-3-13
IETF LC End Date: 2012-3-22
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
Section 5.1.1 third paragraph change to provided by some
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2012-3-13
IETF LC End Date: 2012-3-28
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standard track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
1. In section 4.2 In absence of both the MT-PRIORITY MAIL FROM
parameter
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2012-2-23
IETF LC End Date: 2012-2-23
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Standards Track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
Section 1 4th paragraph tunnelling
: Roni Even
Review Date:2012-1-29
IETF LC End Date: 2012-2-7
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
Major issues:
The first IANA action is to update
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types/ds-rr-types.txt which requires
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2012-1-24
IETF LC End Date: 2012-2-14
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Experimental RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
1. Section 2 bullet 3 Securty?
2. In section
Hi,
I am OK with minor issue 2 now.
Issue 3 was my only point
Roni
-Original Message-
From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kire...@juniper.net]
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 7:36 PM
To: Roni Even
Cc: Kireeti Kompella; draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn@tools.ietf.org;
gen-...@ietf.org
Hi,
I looked at the 08 version and the major issues are addressed.
What about minor issue number 3?
Roni Even
-Original Message-
From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kire...@juniper.net]
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 10:23 PM
To: Roni Even
Cc: Kireeti Kompella; draft-kompella-l2vpn
: Roni Even
Review Date: 2012-1-1
IETF LC End Date: 2012-1-4
IESG Telechat date: 2012-1-5
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a standard RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
1. In section 3.2 Type and VSS Information -- see
: Roni Even
Review Date: 2011-11-20
IETF LC End Date: 2011-11-29
IESG Telechat date: 2011-12-1
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a standard RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
The last sentence in section 5.10 (TBD ...) hints
: Roni Even
Review Date: 2011-10-30
IETF LC End Date: 2011-10-23
IESG Telechat date: 2011-12-1
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an standard track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments
: Roni Even
Review Date: 2011-10-30
IETF LC End Date: 2011-11-4
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an informational RFC.
Major issues:
I do not have any editorial issues but I am not sure about the value of the
document. I saw the IESG
: Roni Even
Review Date: 2011-10-29
IETF LC End Date: 2011-10-31
IESG Telechat date: 2011-11-3
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an experimental RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
1. The IANA section is not clear. It talks about three new tables
: Roni Even
Review Date: 2011-10-29
IETF LC End Date: 2011-10-20
IESG Telechat date: 2011-11-3
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a standard track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
I noticed that the example in section 3
/*
MIME parts). There has not been any report of interoperability problems as
a result. This factored into the working group's consensus.
-MSK
From: Roni Even [mailto:ron.even@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2011 10:51 PM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy; draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis
other behavior. Can the sender of the report know if it can send the
report in another multipart MIME message.
Thanks
Roni Even
From: Murray S. Kucherawy [mailto:m...@cloudmark.com]
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 7:29 AM
To: Roni Even; draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis@tools.ietf.org
Cc: gen
: Roni Even
Review Date: 2011-10-1
IETF LC End Date: 2011-10-10
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
I noticed that the major change from RFC 3462 in the current version is to
remove
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2011-9-29
IETF LC End Date: 2011-10-3
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments
Hi Qin,
Thanks for the review see inline
Roni
From: payload-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:payload-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Qin Wu
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 9:16 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: payl...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [payload] [Payload] Last Call:
draft-ietf-payload-rfc3189bis-02.txt
: Roni Even
Review Date: 2011-9-7
IETF LC End Date: 2011-9-27
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is not ready for publication as an informational RFC.
Major issues:
The IANA considerations section says:
the values already allocated are in Table 1 of Section 4. The allocation
: Roni Even
Review Date:2011-8-20
IETF LC End Date: 2011-8-26
IESG Telechat date: 2011-8-25
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a standard track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
1. Section 5 This section is to aide should
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2011-8-16
IETF LC End Date: 2011-8-19
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
I find that the document provides in depth testing procedures and reporting.
What I
: Roni Even
Review Date:2011-7-31
IETF LC End Date: 2011-8-9
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
I read in section 3.2
The IESG has determined that IONs will not be used in the future
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2011-7-6
IETF LC End Date: 2011-7-13
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a standard track RFC. One
nit
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
In section 3 fifth paragraph An alternative approach
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-roll-of0-14
Reviewer: Roni
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2011-6-21
IETF LC End Date: 2011-6-30
IESG Telechat date: 2011-6-30
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a standard track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
___
Ietf
: Roni Even
Review Date:2011-5-29
IETF LC End Date: 2011-6-6
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standard track RFC.
Major issues:
1. I am not sure how the IANA consideration section is in-line with
the IANA consideration section of RFC5892
-09
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2011-5-24
IETF LC End Date: 2011-5-30
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a standard track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
1. Need to expand LDP when first mentioned.
2
Farrel [mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 1:16 PM
To: 'Roni Even'; draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-
dsmap@tools.ietf.org
Cc: gen-...@ietf.org; 'IETF-Discussion list'
Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-
dsmap-09
Thanks Roni,
Nits
: Roni Even
Review Date:2011-4-26
IETF LC End Date: 2011-4-29
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
This is more out of curiosity
1. Why not include it in draft-ietf-grow-mrt-14
2. Why
may not
find an interoperable mode.
If the initiator will use none technique than you will have
interoperability.
Roni
-Original Message-
From: Dan Harkins [mailto:dhark...@lounge.org]
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 3:39 AM
To: Roni Even
Cc: draft-harkins-ipsecme-spsk-auth
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2011-4-11
IETF LC End Date: 2011-4-23
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an Experimental RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
1. In section 8.5 and 8.6 the draft says that If no more password
pre-processing
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2011-4-10
IETF LC End Date: 2011-4-12
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as standard track RFC.
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
1. In section 8.3 NAT-44 appears without
Hi,
I reviewed version 7 and all my comments were addressed.
Roni Even
-Original Message-
From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:paul.hoff...@vpnc.org]
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 6:08 AM
To: Roni Even
Cc: draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-community@tools.ietf.org; gen-
a...@ietf.org; 'IETF
-community-06
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2011-3-10
IETF LC End Date: 2011-3-18
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as Informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
1. In section 1 The returned list of I-Ds and/or RFCs includes five
Hi,
My impression from reading the document and according to figure 1 was that
all end host communication was done in a UDP tunnel. So what is the relation
of the TCP connection to BTMM.
Roni Even
From: Lixia Zhang [mailto:li...@cs.ucla.edu]
Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2011 7:52 AM
To: Roni
: Roni Even
Review Date:2011-3-4
IETF LC End Date: 2011-3-18
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as Informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
In section 5 and in section 6.1 second bullet you mention that the end to
end connection is TCP
-search-06
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2011-2-20
IETF LC End Date: 2011-2-28
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as Experimental RFC.
Major issues:
None
Minor issues:
None
Nits/editorial comments:
None
-search-06
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2011-2-20
IETF LC End Date: 2011-2-28
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as Experimental RFC.
Major issues:
None
Minor issues:
None
Nits/editorial comments:
None
Hi Shinta,
I am OK with all your proposals
Thanks
Roni
-Original Message-
From: Shinta Sugimoto [mailto:shi...@sfc.wide.ad.jp]
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2011 3:29 PM
To: Roni Even
Cc: draft-ietf-shim6-multihome-shim-api@tools.ietf.org; gen-
a...@ietf.org; 'IETF-Discussion list
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2011-2-1
IETF LC End Date: 2011-2-10
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as Informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
1. In section 8.2 the path exploration parameters are different from
RFC 5534
Yaakov,
Yes this is what I mean
Roni
From: Yaakov Stein [mailto:yaako...@rad.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 5:47 PM
To: Roni Even; draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map@tools.ietf.org;
gen-...@ietf.org
Cc: 'IETF-Discussion list'
Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map
-03
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2011-1-24
IETF LC End Date: 2011-2-10
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
This document has a standard track intended status. It looks to me more of
informational type.
Nits
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2011-1-23
IETF LC End Date: 2011-1-24
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Standard track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
1. The document starts with Contributors
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2011-1-23
IETF LC End Date: 2011-2-8
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Standard track RFC.
Major issues:
none
Minor issues:
None
Nits/editorial comments:
None
___
Ietf
Hi Karl,
I looked at the 05 version and it does not look like you fixed the nits
Roni
From: Karl Heinz Wolf [mailto:karlheinz.w...@nic.at]
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 10:28 AM
To: Roni Even; General Area Review Team;
draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-servicelistboundary@tools.ietf.org
Cc: IETF
Hi Christer,
I am OK with all your responses
regards
Roni
-Original Message-
From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:christer.holmb...@ericsson.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2011 12:20 PM
To: Roni Even; gen-...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-sipcore-
keep@tools.ietf.org
Cc: 'IETF-Discussion
: Roni Even
Review Date:2010-12-28
IETF LC End Date: 2011-1-5
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a Standard track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
1. In the document you mention that the keep alive can be negotiated in
each direction. I
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2010-12-20
IETF LC End Date: 2011-1-5
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an Standard track
RFC.
Major issues:
No Major issues
Minor issues:
1. In section 2.1 after figure 1 you specify the different fields
-servicelistboundary-04
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2010-12-04
IETF LC End Date: 2010-12-14
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Experimental RFC. There
are some nits
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
1
Hi Joe,
Thanks
Inline
Roni
-Original Message-
From: Joe Salowey [mailto:jsalo...@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 7:42 AM
To: Roni Even
Cc: 'General Area Review Team'; draft-ietf-emu-eaptunnel-
req@tools.ietf.org; 'IETF-Discussion list'
Subject: Re: Gen-ART last call
-control-plane-04
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2010-11-28
IETF LC End Date: 2010-12-3
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC. There
are some nits and minor issue.
Major issues:
Minor issues: The example in appendix
-
From: Rodney Dunn [mailto:rod...@cisco.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 6:09 PM
To: Joel Jaeggli
Cc: Roni Even; General Area Review Team; IETF-Discussion list; draft-
ietf-opsec-protect-control-plane@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-opsec-protect-control-
plane
Hi,
I sent the following review on October 25th but did not see and response.
Roni Even
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
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2010-10-25
IETF LC End Date: 2010-11-10
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
1. In section 2 why not reference RFC 2119 or at least copy the
definition from
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
