Vijay, thanks for your review of this document. I entered a No Objection ballot.
Alissa
> On Dec 18, 2019, at 5:54 PM, Vijay Gurbani wrote:
>
> All: This email serves as the second half of the review of
> draft-ietf-nsfv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns-03.
>
> I reviewed pages 297 to the end of the docu
Peter, thanks for your review. I entered a No Objection ballot.
Alissa
> On Nov 9, 2019, at 12:28 PM, Peter Yee via Datatracker
> wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Peter Yee
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) re
Ines, thanks for your review. I entered a No Objection ballot.
Alissa
> On Dec 2, 2019, at 6:59 PM, Ines Robles via Datatracker
> wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Ines Robles
> Review result: Ready
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews al
Hi all,
The following reviewers have assignments:
For telechat 2020-01-09
Reviewer Type LC end Draft
Pete Resnick Telechat 2019-10-14
draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-11 (-09 lc reviewed)
Last calls:
Reviewer Type LC end Draft
F
Ines:
Thanks for taking the time to review the document.
> Reviewer: Ines Robles
> Review result: Ready
>
> 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
Hi, Ludwig.Thanks for the prompt response.Regarding he major issue, I
understand what the intention of the split was, but as far as early
implementations are concerned, there is no such thing as a 'minimal breakage';
unless there is some cunning mechanism in the basic ace-oauth-authz protocol,
