I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team
(Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF
Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.t
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team
(Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF
Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.t
Henning,
OK. I'm now happy with -10.
Thanks,
Paul
On 11/26/15 7:30 AM, Henning Rogge wrote:
Am 25.11.2015 um 16:11 schrieb Paul Kyzivat:
Henning,
I'm not trying to second guess the intent. My issues are solely with the
presentation. And clearly this is not a subject I'm knowl
The changes look good to me, and address all of my nits.
Thanks Yu!
--
- m&m
Matt Miller
Cisco Systems, Inc.
> On Nov 26, 2015, at 02:13, Yu Fu wrote:
>
> Hi Matt,
>
> Thanks for your review. All the nits have been corrected in the updated
> version.
>
> Thanks again
>
> BR
> Yu
>
>
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your document
shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. For more
information, please s
Late addition:
Robert Sparks2015-11-23 draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc6598-rfc6303-05 **
Jean
On 11/25/15 5:19 PM, A. Jean Mahoney wrote:
Hi all,
The following reviewers have assignments:
Reviewer LC end Draft
-
Hi all,
The following reviewers have assignments:
Reviewer LC end Draft
-
Elwyn Davies 2015-12-09 draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-39
draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-dot-x-39
Elwyn,
Hi Colin and Paul.
Thanks for your responses. I think -10 clears up most of the points
below. There is one point and a query that don't seem to be addressed:
s5.4.2, last para and Figure 5: It would be helpful to remind people
that the
value 0x/65535 indicates variable length
Hi.
Thanks for the response.
I think that the suggested text for s5.7.2 is fine.
To be clear, on s5.4.2 and s8, the point I was trying to get across is
that the variable length encoding is a MAY/RECOMMENDED. Accordingly
agents can alternatively use a fixed length encoding. I was suggesting
