Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:45 -0800 , Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 10/02/2017 23:20, Stewart Bryant wrote: > > On 10/02/2017 03:25, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > > On 10/02/2017 04:19, Stewart Bryant wrote: > > > > I wonder if we would best serve both our future and our heritage > > > > if we declared

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > On Feb 10, 2017 11:30 PM, "C. M. Heard" wrote: > > On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:45 -0800 , Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > On 10/02/2017 23:20, Stewart Bryant wrote: > > > On 10/02/2017 03:25, Brian E Carpenter

[Gen-art] RE: REVIEW: draft-ietf-imss-fc-vf-mib-02.txt

All, In my humble opinion ANY group in the IETF that reviews MIB documents should be obliged to follow RFC 4181/BCP 111. One of the reasons we wrote the document was to ensure that different MIB Doctors would provide consistent reviews. Authors have a right to expect the same from other review

RE: [Gen-art] RE: REVIEW: draft-ietf-imss-fc-vf-mib-02.txt

On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > I do not believe that his comment intended to be 'discouraging' > and certainly did not say 'you can't review', but just made the > point that on MIB-related subjects, this reference should be > consulted. Indeed. The point I was trying to make is

Re: [Gen-art] RE: REVIEW: draft-ietf-imss-fc-vf-mib-02.txt

Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I think there is no realistic chance [ ... ] of asking all > generalist reviewers to be aware of what MIB Doctors look for in > detail. Just in case it was not clear, I was not suggesting that. But I do think it would be reasonable would be for the generalists to be awa

[Gen-art] Re: GenART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-10.txt

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-10.txt ... > My one concern is that the security considerations section > seems to be overly triumphant in declaring that "this > document has no impact on the security of the Interne

[Gen-art] Re: Last Call: draft-heard-rfc4181-update (RFC 4181 Update to Recognize the IETF Trust) to BCP [WAS: Gen-art review of draft-heard-rfc4181-update-00.txt]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call commen

[Gen-art] Consistency of reviews

Hi, On Thu, 15 Feb 2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 2007-02-13 20:16, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: On Monday, February 12, 2007 10:26:13 AM -0800 "C. M. Heard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > > The title of the draft co

[Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART review of draft-cheshire-ipv4-acd-05.txt

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, Spencer Dawkins wrote: > address of the interface sending the packet. The 'sender IP address' > field MUST be set to all zeroes, to avoid polluting ARP caches in > other hosts on the same link in the case where the address turns out > to be already in use by another ho

[Gen-art] Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-38

Greetings, Many thanks for the review. The principal author and I will work to get these issues into the github tracker and addressed. Before doing that I would like to address this point: On Sun, Feb 9, 2025 at 1:38 PM Robert Sparks

[Gen-art] Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-38

ts represent. This restriction ensures their safe use in environments that might include legacy receivers (see Section 12), because the transport payload occurs inside the FRAG option area and is silently discarded by legacy receivers. Respectfully, Mike Heard On Sun, Feb 9, 2025 at 3:01 PM