ENDED is a RFC2119 keyword. The issue is that xml2rfc template does
not include it.
- Jouni
>
>
>
> -- 6.1, first paragraph: "subsystem does not need to multiple
> multiple sessions on one socket"
>
> I thi
Peter,
Thank you for the thorough review. We try to address these comments as soon as
possible.
- Jouni
On Oct 2, 2014, at 4:22 AM, Peter Yee wrote:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.
viewer: Jouni Korhonen
Review Date: 2015-11-29
IETF LC End Date: 2015-12-04
IESG Telechat date: 2015-12-17
Summary:
Ready for publication with some nits.
Comments:
-
The document was good read and easy to understand.
Minor issues/nits:
--
* IDnits spits ou
Hi Hannes,
> On 21 Dec 2015, at 11:31, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>
> Hi Jouni,
>
> thanks for your review. Please find my response inline:
>
> On 11/30/2015 04:46 AM, Jouni wrote:
>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
>&g
Hi,
Thanks for a quick reponse. OK with the proposed changes.
- Jouni
> On 04 Feb 2016, at 00:02, James Winterbottom
> wrote:
>
> Hi Jouni,
>
> Please see inline:
>
> Assuming these changes are okay, I will re-issue once I have incorporated the
> other req
Hi Kevin,
Ok. That’s fine then (probably the mailstones needs to be updated to reflect
that decision). I just noticed I sent the review to ops-dir instead of
gen-art.. ;-) Now replying to the right list.
- Jouni
> On 26 Mar 2016, at 19:37, Kevin Ma J wrote:
>
> Hi Jouni,
>
Hi,
Right. My fault, I just missed the mail from Christer. I’ll get back to it asap.
- Jouni
> On 02 Jun 2016, at 06:24, Jari Arkko wrote:
>
> Thanks for your review, and good questions, Christer. Authors, I have not
> seen a response or a new version. What’s up?
>
> J
ttp://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-16
Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
Review Date: 8/11/2016
IETF LC End Date: 2016-08-12
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: Ready with minor nits.
Major issues: None.
Minor issues: Read on..
Editorials/nits:
Hi David,
See inline.
> On 12 Aug 2016, at 12:25, Black, David wrote:
>
> Hi Jouni,
>
> Thanks for the review. I have a few comments as draft shepherd (anything
> that I don't comment on below is editorial and will likely just be fixed in
> the next version):
Great. Thanks!
- Jouni
On Aug 27, 2013, at 7:40 PM, "Black, David" wrote:
> The -11 version of this draft addresses all of the nits and editorial comments
> noted in the Gen-ART review of the -10 version. It's ready for publication as
> an Informational RFC
Thanks Alexey,
We'll take care of these comments asap.
- Jouni
On Aug 30, 2013, at 2:31 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenAr
Alexey,
The review comments have been implemented and are visible in the github
in-progress version:
https://github.com/jounikor/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis/blob/master/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis-04.txt
- Jouni
On Aug 30, 2013, at 2:31 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> I am the assigned
Thanks Alexey.
- Jouni
On Sep 10, 2013, at 2:00 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>
>
> Please resolve these co
Martin,
Thanks for the detailed review. I'll let the authors respond to these if they
have further questions or clarifications to ask.
- Jouni
On Sep 14, 2013, at 3:13 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> Gen-ART, ple
Thanks David.
- JOuni
On Sep 20, 2013, at 2:57 AM, "Black, David" wrote:
> And the -12 version is likewise ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
>
> Thanks,
> --David
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Black, David
>> Sent: T
Thanks Ben for the review!
- JOuni
On Nov 19, 2013, at 1:38 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
>
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> This
Ben,
Alan just posted -08 revision. Could you check it whether all your concerns
have been addressed and you are OK with the revision.
- JOuni (doc shepherd)
On Jan 23, 2014, at 9:05 PM, Alan DeKok wrote:
> Ben Campbell wrote:
>> *** Major issues:
>>
>> -- General:
&
ned
and the NAS can safely interpret that as an Access-Reject, when
appropriate by the deployment.
NAS doesn't include the attribute if it is not needed. And if it does,
the current text allows still accepting the service regardless the
lack of the attribute in the Access-Accept.
- Jouni
O
Martin,
We'll check this again. Thanks.
- Jouni
On Jun 17, 2014, at 2:54 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> I just read through the diff of -24. I'm assuming that my feedback
> was lost somewhere.
>
> On 14 September 2013 09:41, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
>> Martin,
&g
ion-10
Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
Review Date: Oct-15-2015
IETF LC End Date: Oct-27-2015
IESG Telechat date: not yet
Summary:
Ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
Comments:
-
I do not have deep expertise on the area this I-D covers. Having read it
through and knowi
bis-08
Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
Review Date:2015–12-21
IETF LC End Date: 2015–12-28
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a standard track RFC
with small nits to be corrected.
Major issues: None.
Minor issues:
* The document seems to imply/assume that a DNS que
, please see the FAQ at <
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
- Jouni
Summary:
This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits
that should be fixed before publication. The nits are only
editorial.
Comments:
I do have little expert
er present in
the translated messages.
* Line 588: what happens to translated IP packet with illegal source
addresses? Is this the case for SHOULD referred in line 367?
- Jouni
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
t
aligning the text for consistency if the options are never present in
the translated messages.
* Line 588: what happens to translated IP packet with illegal source
addresses? Is this the case for SHOULD referred in line 367?
- Jouni
___
Gen
Hi,
> On 08 Mar 2016, at 16:27, Xing Li wrote:
>
> Hi, Jouni,
>
> Thank you very much for your review and comments. Please see inline.
>
> Jouni Korhonen 写道:
>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review
>> Team
>> (Ge
Hi,
The proposed edits look good to me. Thanks.
- jouni
Sent from a smart phone.. Mind the typos..
On Mar 9, 2016, at 12:40 AM, Xing Li wrote:
Hi，Jouni,
Thanks. Please see inline.
Jouni Korhonen 写道:
Comments:
* Lines 480 and 928 have "advertised MTU", which not really i
ttp://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-core-block-19
Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
Review Date: 4/18/2016
IETF LC End Date: 4/12/2016
IESG Telechat date: 4/21/2016
Summary: Ready with nits
Major issues: none.
Minor issues:
* The intoduction mentions that the block tra
ttp://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-core-block-19
Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
Review Date: 4/18/2016
IETF LC End Date: 4/12/2016
IESG Telechat date: 4/21/2016
Summary: Ready with nits
Major issues: none.
Minor issues:
* The intoduction mentions that the block tra
Carsten,
See inline.
4/20/2016, 11:26 PM, Carsten Bormann kirjoitti:
Jouni Korhonen 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
Hi Jouni,
Just saying.. the use of NUM was not crystal clear just by reading the
draft and not having the followed the core block development &
discussion past few years.
Thanks,
Jouni
4/27/2016, 2:33 PM, Carsten Bormann kirjoitti:
Hi Jouni,
* The intoduction mentions that
inology as in the
Abstract.
Ok. That will be 'specifies' then.
Q_INTRODUCTION_5:
Please enhance AVP on first occurrence. Currently it’s not
done until Section 3.
Ack.
Thanks,
Jouni
___
Gen-art mailing list
G
see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis-09
Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
Review Date: 7/6/2016
IETF LC End Date: 15-12-28
IESG Telechat date: 7/7/2016
Summary: Ready for publication.
Major issues: None.
Minor issues: None.
Hi Lucy,
Thank you for the response. Sorry for my slow response. I tried to be on
a vacation last week/weekend so my checking of emails was sparse at best
;) See inline.
8/12/2016, 1:51 PM, Lucy yong kirjoitti:
Hi Jouni,
Thank you for the review and correction. Pls see inline below
Hi Lucy,
See inline ;)
8/12/2016, 2:10 PM, Lucy yong kirjoitti:
Hi Jouni,
OOPS, forget this one, sorry.
o My “complaint” of this document is basically on the following.. these are
writing
style things so feel free to neglect:
- It repeats.. the same statements multiple times.
Lucy
David,
8/15/2016, 7:01 AM, Black, David kirjoitti:
Hi Jouni,
Three quick responses:
IPv6 NATs - Ah, now I see the concern. We'll rewrite the middlebox material on
IPv6 zero checksums to avoid using NATs as examples.
The "MUST" for the "MAY" requirement in RFC 6936
see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-mibs-obsolete-01
Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
Review Date: 8/29/2016
IETF LC End Date: 2016-08-24
IESG Telechat date: 2016-09-01
Summary: Ready with nits. Note. I did not run these MIBs t
see inline.
8/29/2016, 2:45 PM, Bill Fenner kirjoitti:
On Aug 29, 2016, at 4:25 PM, Jouni Korhonen 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 wait for
see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-05
Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
Review Date: 9/23/2016
IETF LC End Date: 2016-09-28
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: The draft needs some work.
Major issues:
I ha
Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new
Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new
Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new
Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
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
Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new
etups to define. However, the position where PDM
timestamps are taken SHOULD be as close to the physical network interface as
possible. Not all implementations will be able to achieve the ideal level of
measurement.
- Jouni
> On Mar 10, 2017, at 7:13 AM, nalini.elk...@insidethestack.com w
Thanks. I am OK with the new version. Thank you for going through this nits
tweaking ;)
- Jouni
> On Mar 13, 2017, at 4:55 AM, nalini.elk...@insidethestack.com wrote:
>
> All,
>
> We believe that all comments have now been addressed with this new draft.
> Please let us
Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new
Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
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 comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new
Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new
Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
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 comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
27;skippable Extension' range (128-255):
>
> Service Selection Extension is set to TBD
>
> A new Mobile IPv4 registration denied by home agent error code is
> required. The error code must be allocated from the 'Error Codes
> from the Home Agent' range (128-192):
>
> SERVICE_AUTHORIZATION_FAILED is set to TBD
>
> Spencer: (if you revise this draft, you probably want to use "TBD1", "TBD2",
> etc. so that it's clearer to IANA which "TBD" gets replaced with each
> allocated value)
>
Good point. I'll fix that.
Cheers,
Jouni
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
Hi Spencer,
On Dec 29, 2008, at 6:13 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Hi, Jouni,
Thanks for your quick response - I'm OK with most of your proposed
changes.
I should emphasize that my comments here are Last Call comments that
you (and the document shepherd, and the AD) can decide to i
AA communication rely
on
SHOULD BE:
In this case the NAS to Diameter server AAA communication relies on
Thanks. Will fix these.
Cheers,
Jouni
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
Hi Peter,
On Aug 4, 2009, at 8:41 PM, McCann Peter-A001034 wrote:
Hi, Jouni,
Thanks, I went back and re-read Section 2.8 of RFC 3588 and
refreshed my understanding of Diameter Answer routing. You are
correct that the reverse path routing is taken care of by the
transaction state. Perhaps
ce.
6.1. Session-Termination-Request
The LMA or the MAG MAY send the Session-Termination-Request (STR)
command [RFC3588] to the HAAA and inform the termination of an
Spencer (clarity): I got lost in this sentence. Suggest "to inform
the HAAA that the termination of...
Hi Spencer,
Sorry for the lag.. sometimes holidays interfere working ;) See more
comments inline.
On Aug 6, 2009, at 8:02 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Hi, Jouni,
Thanks for the quick response. If I wasn't still jet-lagged, I could
remember what I was thinking when I did the r
Sounds OK to me.
cheers,
Jouni
On Aug 17, 2009, at 3:05 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Hi, Julian,
If this is a concern, I would be FINE with text that says
"Whenever the MAG sends a Diameter request message to the HAAA, the
User-Name SHOULD contain the MN's identity
Hi Pete,
I have updated the I-D based on your comments. The -03 version should
be available readily in draft repositories.
Cheers,
Jouni
On Aug 4, 2009, at 8:41 PM, McCann Peter-A001034 wrote:
Hi, Jouni,
Thanks, I went back and re-read Section 2.8 of RFC 3588 and
refreshed my
preferred
over IP addresses in the context of AAA based LMA discovery solutions.
- Jouni
On Oct 16, 2010, at 11:14 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Due to time-compression this is both a Last Call and pre-telechat review.
>
>Brian
>
>
>
>
__
Hi Brian,
On Oct 21, 2010, at 1:27 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Hi Jouni,
>
> SLP often seems to be forgotten, but it was designed for this
> sort of use, as far as I can see. I've also been told (and I
> don't know if this is true) that SLP code is present in
Thanks Pete for extensive review. I'll come back to your major issues in a bit.
- Jouni
On Apr 14, 2011, at 10:23 PM, Pete McCann wrote:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
> please see the FAQ at
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/a
gt; Section 5.3.2:
> considerations has to taken
> SHOULD BE:
> considerations have to be taken
>
> BUL to correspond the r2LMA address
> SHOULD BE:
> BUL to contain the r2LMA address
>
> Section 5.3.4:
> then the proceeds as mentioned in Section 5.2),
> SHOULD BE:
> then the PBU is processed as described in Section 5.2,
>
> Section 5.4.1:
> Address where the PBU was sent to
> SHOULD BE:
> Address to which the PBU was sent
Above are OK.
Thanks,
Jouni
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
gt; Section 8.6:
> Other types of configurations are considered network planning
> mistakes.
> Seems like a value statement, rather than a statement of fact. [*] See also
> statements containing "unfortunately".
Do you have a suggestion for better wording? The statement is here because it
is possible and rather easy to deploy a network that allow other types of
handovers. However, in that case the outcome is unpredictable, especially when
the network has equipment from multiple vendors.. and those cases and recovery
procedures are not even documented.
- Jouni
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
Hi,
On Aug 11, 2011, at 4:27 AM, Thomson, Martin wrote:
> On 2011-08-09 at 18:28:05, jouni korhonen wrote:
>>> It's easy to infer from reading further that "layer-2" implies "pre-
>> IP", but that view is at odds with the view that other nodes
>>
ast
> para.)
I would say:
... conveys 64 bits (8 octets) interface identifier representing a
particular MN's interface.
since IIDs are always discussed as "64 bits interface ids".
>
> s4.16, last line of figure: s/LMA IPv6/DHCP v6 server/
>
> s5.1, bullet 1: s/Home-/Home/
Ack.
>
> s7: I am not sure if the various must's and may's ought to be MUST's and
> MAY's.
>
Any specific example?
- Jouni
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
for the implementers. Those indirectly refer
to existing attributes so having a MUST there is probably a good idea.
>
> Thinking about it, the 'may's' in ss5.2, 6.2 and 7.3 are correct.
>
Ack.
- Jouni
> Once again thanks for the speedy turnaround.
>
> Regards
ay be sending
a /64 in each RA on its downstream interfaces, thus chopping the delegated
prefix into a number of smaller prefixes. And if each downstream interface
have their own /64 prefix, then including a summary prefix shorter than /64
does not really work.
- Jouni
On Feb 15, 2012, at 9:35 PM,
Thanks Ben for a thorough review. Very good comments indeed. We'll come back
to this in a bit.. you know -00 deadline approaching and such ;)
- Jouni
On 2/29/12 1:34 AM, "ext Ben Campbell" wrote:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> Ge
Roni,
Thanks for the review. We'll take care of the editorials.
- Jouni
On Mar 13, 2012, at 1:24 PM, Roni Even wrote:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
> please see the FAQ at
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/tr
However you have a
> registry for types of identifiers, so a new value can be allocated for
> bigger-than-4-bytes PENs.
Right. So we could just remove the 4 octet length requirement and use a
"natural" length indicated octet coding for the PENs. For example
ANI Length = 1 ->
Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
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 comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
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
Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
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 comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
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
Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
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
Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
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
Document: draft-ietf-lisp-geo
Title: LISP Geo-Coordinates
Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
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
77 matches
Mail list logo
