Russ, thank you for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot for this
document.
Lars
> On 2021-3-15, at 17:28, Russ Housley via Datatracker wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Russ Housley
> Review result: Ready
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team
Christer, thank you for your review . I have entered a No Objection ballot for
this document.
Lars
> On 2021-4-15, at 22:34, Christer Holmberg via Datatracker
> wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
> Review result: Almost Ready
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The Ge
Hi John,
>> Q1: As far as I understand, the document only defines a new BGP OPEN Optional
>> Parameter Type, but does not modify/add procedures in RFC 4271. So, is the
>> document really an update to RFC 4271? And, when reading RFC 5429, I cannot
>> find any text saying that new parameter types wo
Hi Christer,
I chose to leave the abstract alone, however I updated the introduction for
-13, similar to your suggestion:
This document updates [RFC4271] by extending, in a backward-
compatible manner, the length of the Optional Parameters in BGP OPEN.
This is done by using Optional Pa
Hi all,
The following reviewers have assignments:
Last calls:
Reviewer Type LC end Draft
Stewart Bryant Last Call 2021-04-22 draft-ietf-babel-yang-model-09
Elwyn Davies Last Call 2021-05-03 draft-ietf-core-senml-versions-02
Linda Dunbar Last Cal
Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour
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 being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
Fo
Hello Meral,
Regarding the following:
On 4/22/2021 5:45 PM, Meral Shirazipour via Datatracker wrote:
Section B1 says "Reclassified [RFC6998] and [RFC7416] as Informational."
RFC7416 was already Informational. What that a typo?
This is not part of the final RFC - I was just trying to follow the
