Stewart,
do we need more cycles for this, or is draft-15 sufficient to address your
concerns?
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 12:52 PM Mark Allman wrote:
>
> Hi Stewart, et.al.!
>
> I just submitted a new version of rto-consider. Please ask the
> datatracker for diffs between this and rev -14. The hig
Hi Stewart,
If there are no further objections, I'm going to declare consensus.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 1:45 PM Martin Duke wrote:
> Stewart,
>
> do we need more cycles for this, or is draft-15 sufficient to address your
> concerns?
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 12:5
Hi Stewart,
I'm going to ship draft-16 to the IESG today. Any last concerns beyond the
stated differences from WG consensus?
Yoshi, please update the shepherd writeup to cover the flavor of this
discussion.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 7:18 AM Stewart Bryant
wrote:
> Here is how we should proceed.
Hi Reese,
Thanks for the review.
However, I think the text is correct as is. The first part is saying the
measures might not deter anyone, while the second part says they might be
deterred (finding it not feasible).
Nevertheless, this PR makes the sentence read a little better:
https://github.co
the fire drill.
Thanks,
Martin Duke
responsible AD.
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
The authors addressed my issue unusually quickly, so the current version is
now ready.
Sorry again for the churn.
On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 11:32 AM Martin Duke wrote:
> I have pulled back https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-pam/
> from last call because it came to my attentio
Thanks Joel!
On Sat, Jul 6, 2024 at 11:35 AM Joel Halpern via Datatracker <
nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
> 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
