I should have read all my mail before replying.
On 3/29/16 5:50 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
On 3/29/16 4:31 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hi Roni, and gen-art (other cc's dropped)
So, a gen-art question to the gen-art reviewers :-)
What is the criterion for major issue?
The judgement of the revi
[Changing the subject line]
On 3/29/16 5:31 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hi Roni, and gen-art (other cc's dropped)
So, a gen-art question to the gen-art reviewers :-)
What is the criterion for major issue?
I have also wondered about this.
So far I have just been "winging" it, but I continue t
Fundamentally, no, it is NOT normalized. It is the reviewers judgment
of the importance.
I try to use a measure that says that if I were an AD, I would think
this was blocking before I mark things as Major. But that is just me.
And is still a judgment call.
And, in case it got lost in the
Hi,
Adding Alissa to the thread
We had a similar issue with draft-ietf-avtcore-aria-srtp . The result was to
downgrade from Standard to Informational.
This required to go back to the WG.
I also noted that there is some text in section one that looks like a
recommendation which will look like
Hi Roni,
On 30/03/2016 15:21, Roni Even wrote:
Hi,
Adding Alissa to the thread
We had a similar issue with draft-ietf-avtcore-aria-srtp . The result was to
downgrade from Standard to Informational.
This required to go back to the WG.
I also noted that there is some text in section one that l
> On Mar 30, 2016, at 7:21 AM, Roni Even wrote:
>
> Hi,
> Adding Alissa to the thread
> We had a similar issue with draft-ietf-avtcore-aria-srtp . The result was to
> downgrade from Standard to Informational.
> This required to go back to the WG.
I suspect the issue with aria — that it was n
Hi,
The issue with ARIA was that it was not international standard and as far as I
can see from the references this one is not either.
The IETF RFC for it is informational.
Roni
> -Original Message-
> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:ali...@cooperw.in]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 6:4
> On Mar 30, 2016, at 9:49 AM, Roni Even wrote:
>
> Hi,
> The issue with ARIA was that it was not international standard and as far as
> I can see from the references this one is not either.
Just giving my opinion here, will let the sec people provide an authoritative
answer since they rais
On 31/03/2016 02:49, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> [Changing the subject line]
>
> On 3/29/16 5:31 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>
>> Hi Roni, and gen-art (other cc's dropped)
>>
>> So, a gen-art question to the gen-art reviewers :-)
>>
>> What is the criterion for major issue?
>
> I have also wondered abo
On 3/30/16 2:40 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 31/03/2016 02:49, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
[Changing the subject line]
On 3/29/16 5:31 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hi Roni, and gen-art (other cc's dropped)
So, a gen-art question to the gen-art reviewers :-)
What is the criterion for major issue?
Hi Brian,
I like your clarification
Roni
> -Original Message-
> From: Gen-art [mailto:gen-art-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E
> Carpenter
> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 10:40 PM
> To: Paul Kyzivat; gen-art@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] What is the criterion for major issue?
>
Pete,
Thank you for your review and comments. I'll be happy to incorporate all the
changes you've suggested.
I've been a bit swamped. What is a reasonable turnaround time for these?
OK if I get this done within the next week or two?
When I am done making the changes, should I upload a version -05
12 matches
Mail list logo
