> On 30 Jun 2020, at 17:55, Pete Resnick wrote:
>
> On 30 Jun 2020, at 7:24, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>
>>> On 29 Jun 2020, at 18:30, Pete Resnick via Datatracker
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Minor issues:
>>>
>>> It is not clear to me why this is being sent for Informational instead of
>>> Proposed St
Ah, I reviewed version 8, which had an intended status of Historic. As I
was nearing the end of the document, -09 was released. Instead of reading
-09 all over again, I read the diffs between -08 and -09. Looks like the
intended status was changed to Informational in -09, and this change, while
Thank you Vijay,
The resolution of some of the last call comments was to change the intended
status to Informational. I don’t see a need to re-issue the review if others do
not.
Karen
From: Vijay Gurbani
Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 at 9:48 AM
To: Harlan Stenn
Cc: "gen-art >> General area r
Thanks Brian. I entered a No Objection ballot.
Alissa
> On Jun 6, 2020, at 11:58 PM, Brian Carpenter via Datatracker
> wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
> Review result: Ready
>
> Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-12
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer f
Robert, thanks for your review. Huaimo, thanks for addressing Robert’s
comments. I entered a No Objection ballot.
Alissa
> On Jun 12, 2020, at 11:49 AM, Huaimo Chen wrote:
>
> Hi Robert,
>
> Thank you very much for your suggestion.
> We have updated the document (version 16 uploaded)
Dale, thanks for your review. All, thanks for addressing Dale’s comments. I
entered a No Objection ballot.
Alissa
> On Jun 8, 2020, at 10:12 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
>
> Chuck Lever writes:
>>> On May 29, 2020, at 9:44 PM, wor...@ariadne.com wrote:
>>> These changes look sufficient to me.
>
Meral, thanks for your review. All, thanks for your responses. I entered a No
Objection ballot.
Alissa
> On Jun 27, 2020, at 4:08 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
>
> Hi Meral,
>
> Thank you for the review.
>
> Please see inline.
>
> Cheers,
> Med
>
> De : Meral Shirazipour [mai
Stewart, thanks for your review.
> On Jul 3, 2020, at 9:29 AM, Stewart Bryant via Datatracker
> wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
> Review result: Ready with Issues
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents bein
Reviewer: Ines Robles
Review result: Ready with Nits
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 i
Ines:
Thanks for the very carful review. I'll tackle the ones about the ASN.1...
> 4- Appendix A: In id-aa-asymmDecryptKeyID OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {...}
>
> 4.1- pkcs9(9) should be pkcs-9(9) ?
Both are used in different modules. They have become synonyms. That said, we
should pick one, an
Ah, I understand - thanks, no worries.
H
On 7/8/2020 6:47 AM, Vijay Gurbani wrote:
> Ah, I reviewed version 8, which had an intended status of Historic. As
> I was nearing the end of the document, -09 was released. Instead of
> reading -09 all over again, I read the diffs between -08 and -09.
11 matches
Mail list logo
