Dear Robert,
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 12:43:33PM -0600, Robert Sparks wrote:
> 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
Dear Meral,
A new version of the draft has been published to address your comments.
Please review the diff here:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-30-31-129-01
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:35:40AM +, Meral Shirazipour wrote:
> Summary:
> This draft is ready to be p
Hi Bryant,
Thank you for taking the time to go through the document.
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 06:41:15AM -0700, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
>
> SB> Even if you just copy the Introduction, the Abstract should
> SB> really be expanded
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 09:46:53AM +0100, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> > > Operations and Security [RFC7454].
> > >
> > > SB> You do not address the question of whether there are new
> > > SB> considerations, or considerations that are of increased importance?
> >
> > It is my understanding that R
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 03:54:06PM +0100, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> Thanks
>
> I think I have done the required Genart level of due diligence on
> Security.
Much appreciated, stay tuned for an updated version which incorporates
your feedback.
Kind regards,
Job
___
Thanks Stewart!
On Mon, 8 May 2017 at 18:42, Stewart Bryant
wrote:
> Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
> 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
Dear Dale,
Thank you for your time reviewing this document.
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 11:19:34AM -0700, Dale Worley wrote:
> Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits
> that should be fixed before publication.
>
>1. Introduction
>
>BGP rou
(trimming receipients)
Dale, are we good, or do we need to go through another iteration?
Kind regards,
Job
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 06:28:11PM -0400, Hankins, Greg (Nokia - US) wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 04:29:06PM -0400, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> >I suspect my problems come from not realizi
done!
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Job Snijders wrote:
>> (trimming receipients)
>>
>> Dale, are we good, or do we need to go through another iteration?
>
> I'm not Dale, but it sounds to me like there
No problem! Thanks for your review, the document is better for it.
Kind regards,
Job
On Sat, 27 May 2017 at 00:51, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> Job Snijders writes:
> > Dale, are we good, or do we need to go through another iteration?
>
> Yes, I'm good with the new version.
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 at 18:38, Brian Carpenter
wrote:
> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
> Review result: Ready
>
> Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-grow-bgp-session-culling-05
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents b
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 09:56:45AM +, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
> > Minor issues:
> >
> > In Section 4. "EBGP graceful shutdown procedure", it states that 0
> > can used in all cases except where the AS already has a special
> > meaning for 0. It seems to me more ought to be said, but I
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 11:41:32AM +, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
> > Any attribute (origin, as_path, aggregator) anywhere can be overloaded
> > to mean something only significant to the local network. I think the
> > document is simpler without this and see no point in mentioning this.
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 10:56:56AM -0400, Jay Borkenhagen wrote:
> David Farmer writes:
> > I would prefer a normative RECOMMENDED, the rest of the sentence in
> > RFC2119, just means you should explain the constraints on the alternatives.
> > How about something like this;
> >
> > "The LOCAL
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 11:42:47AM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> > Having spend the better part of last week stepping a vendor through
> > exactly these semantics
>
> while there is no proof of termination of clue insertion, that a BGP/ROV
> *implementor* did not get it, justifies the hack.
>
>A
Dear Stewart,
Thank you for taking the time to review this document.
On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 11:18, Stewart Bryant via Datatracker <
nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
> Review result: Ready
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Ge
Dear Vijay,
On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 08:27:30AM -0700, Vijay Gurbani via Datatracker wrote:
> Reviewer: Vijay Gurbani
> 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
Hi Gyan,
Thanks for taking the time to review this document.
On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 05:04:38PM -0800, Gyan Mishra via Datatracker wrote:
> Major issues:
> None
>
> Minor issues:
> None
> Nits/editorial comments:
> In section 2.2 talks about file comparison and says
>
> Old
>
> If a file is fo
Dear Robert,
On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 03:43:44PM -0700, Robert Sparks via Datatracker wrote:
> Reviewer: Robert Sparks
> 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
On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 03:27:45PM -0700, Meral Shirazipour via Datatracker
wrote:
> Summary: This draft is ready to be published as Standards Track RFC.
Thank you for your review!
> Major issues:
>
> Minor issues:
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
> [Page 4], section 4, "Registies"--->"Registries"
Dear Behcet,
Thank you for your time reviewing this document.
On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 10:00:16AM -0700, Behcet Sarikaya via Datatracker wrote:
> Summary:The document describes an approach for RPKI Relying Parties to
> detect a particular form of RPKI Repository Delta Protocol (RRDP)
> session des
On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 10:00:16AM -0700, Behcet Sarikaya via Datatracker wrote:
> Nits/editorial comments:
> The document is short, well-written but has a few nits.
> in section 3.1 it says
> Using its previously recorded state (Section 3.1)
>
> I don't understand (Section 3.1) here, it is alread
Dear Peter,
My apologies for the late reply, somehow failed to reply to this email.
Thank you for your patience and review! Please see below.
On Sun, Apr 06, 2025 at 11:56:33PM -0700, Peter Yee via Datatracker wrote:
> Document: draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-crl-numbers-04
> Reviewer: Peter Yee
> Revie
23 matches
Mail list logo
