Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-04

> On 29 Nov 2015, at 21:16, Brian E Carpenter > wrote: > > Comment: I read all the text and have no technical issues. Hi Brian, Many thanks for the review. After a discussion amongst the authors and Tim, responses below. > > > Major Issues: > - > > This draft replac

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-04

Hi Sara, On 03/12/2015 02:52, Sara Dickinson wrote: > >> On 29 Nov 2015, at 21:16, Brian E Carpenter >> wrote: >> >> Comment: I read all the text and have no technical issues. > > Hi Brian, > > Many thanks for the review. After a discussion amongst the authors and Tim, > responses below. >

[Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-kitten-cammac-04

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

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-kitten-cammac-04

Hi Meral, Thank you for the review. On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, Meral Shirazipour wrote: > Nits/editorial comments: > > [Page 3] 2nd and 3rd paragraph: The word "service" is used to designate > both the proxy-service and the second backend "application-service" as > per [MS-SFU]. This may confuse the re

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-kitten-cammac-04

Hi Ben, Thank you for considering, I read it from the eyes of someone new to the document, and perhaps ref [MS-SFU] caused the doubts. I agree that for people following the work this is probably obvious:) Since it is a Standards document I think it will clarify a lot if the same term is used a