On 5/10/2013 8:12 AM, Robert Sparks wrote:
Thanks Bing -
The updates make the document better, and I appreciate the resolution of
referencing Tim's expired draft.
So the solution is to not reference it? I see the name of the draft is
mentioned in the acknowledgments as:
-6renum-gap-analy...@tools.ietf.org;
gen-...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Gen-art telechat review: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-06.txt
(updated for -07)
Thanks Bing -
The updates make the document better, and I appreciate the resolution of
referencing Tim's expired draft.
I think
: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjspa...@nostrum.com]
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 11:13 PM
To: Liubing (Leo)
Cc: re...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analy...@tools.ietf.org;
gen-...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Gen-art telechat review: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-06.txt
(updated for -07
Thanks Bing -
The updates make the document better, and I appreciate the resolution of
referencing Tim's expired draft.
I think you've addressed all my comments except for the one on section
5.1, but that's ok.
For completeness and ease on the ADs, here's an updated summary:
Document:
On 11/05/2013 04:58, Stig Venaas wrote:
On 5/10/2013 8:12 AM, Robert Sparks wrote:
Thanks Bing -
The updates make the document better, and I appreciate the resolution of
referencing Tim's expired draft.
So the solution is to not reference it? I see the name of the draft is
mentioned in
