[Gen-art] Genart review of draft-ietf-hip-reload-instance-08

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at Document: draft-ietf-hip-reload-instance-08 Reviewer: Christer Holmberg Review Da

[Gen-art] Genart review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-11

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 a new version of the draft. Document:

Re: [Gen-art] Genart review of draft-ietf-hip-reload-instance-08

Thanks for the review and comments Christer! We'll take these into account for the next revision. Cheers, Ari On 9/26/13 10:25 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote: I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review ofdraft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping-12

Roni, Thanks again for your review. Do you think all the issues that you originally listed are resolved? Jari ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-12

Vijay: Thank you very much for your review and re-review, and thank you authors for the revisions. I have placed a No-Objection position on the document. Jari On Sep 20, 2013, at 8:18 PM, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART,

Re: [Gen-art] [netext] Gen-ART LC review: draft-ietf-netext-update-notifications-07

Thank you Robert very much for your review. And I agree with the issue you raised. Thank you Suresh and others for the revision. But I do wish you'd submit the -09…. Jari ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-solmaxrt-update-05 (second review - for IESG telechat)

Thank you very much for your review, Dan. I have placed a No-Objection position for the document. Jari On Sep 22, 2013, at 6:29 PM, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" 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

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review ofdraft-ietf-ccamp-swcaps-update-03

Thank you for your review, Suresh. I have placed a no-objection position for this document in today's IESG telechat. Jari On Sep 18, 2013, at 6:52 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for draft-ietf-ccamp-swcaps-update-03 > > For background on Gen-ART, please see t

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-07

Thank you for the reviews & document revisions! I have placed a no-objection ballot for this document. jari On Sep 20, 2013, at 6:35 PM, Russ Housley wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at >

Re: [Gen-art] review: draft-boucadair-rfc6153-update-01

Thanks for your review, Joel. It is appreciated. Jari On Sep 6, 2013, at 7:33 PM, Joel Halpern wrote: > (Discovered I had not sent this to the list when I did it. Sorry.) > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > >

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-12

Indeed, thank you. Jari On Sep 20, 2013, at 12:40 PM, Jouni Korhonen wrote: > > Thanks David. > > - JOuni > > > On Sep 20, 2013, at 2:57 AM, "Black, David" wrote: > >> And the -12 version is likewise ready for publication as an Informational >> RFC. >> >> Thanks, >> --David >> >>>

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ivov-grouptextchat-purpose-03

Thanks for your review, Meral - appreciated! Jari On Jul 19, 2013, at 2:34 AM, Meral Shirazipour 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 an

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-reqts-08.txt

I don't know whether it is worth mentioning that while the action of the existing B2BUAs is not determinate, we do expect it to be consistent, i.e. it would not pass on the header field on one request, and fail to pass it on on another. Therefore session identifiers in that have been created at

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ecrit-psap-callback-10

Hi Vijay, thanks for reviewing the document. I have a few remarks below: On 20.09.2013 19:30, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote: I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at . Please resolve t

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis-callflows-06.txt

Brian, On 9/25/13 11:45 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at . Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may recei

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ecrit-psap-callback-10

On 09/26/2013 08:22 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: Hi Vijay, thanks for reviewing the document. Hannes: No problem, thanks for considering my comments. Please see inline. Section 5.1 describes the security threat. It is actually quite simple: Imagine you have a mechanism that allows you to by

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis-callflows-06.txt

Paul, On 27/09/2013 02:21, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > Brian, > > On 9/25/13 11:45 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on >> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at >> . >> >> Please resolve th

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis-callflows-06.txt

On 9/26/13 4:01 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: The writeup says "It was difficult to get adequate reviews of this document." I'd say that goes for this whole class of documents. Reviewing the details of SIP call flows is not for ordinary mortals. Well, some would argue that participation in IETF

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-reqts-08.txt

If a B2BUA failed to pass a Session-ID, that's definitely a problem if that same device claims to support INSIPID. I'm not sure we need a requirement for that, though, since being selective or inconsistent would violate REQ3. Paul -- Original Message -- From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)"

[Gen-art] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 2013-09-26

Hi all, The following reviewers have assignments: Reviewer LC end Draft - Meral Shirazipour 2013-10-18 draft-hethmon-mcmurray-ftpext-ftp-hosts-03 I have made the assignments in the review tool: http://art.tool