Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-repute-query-http-09

Thanks for the review, Meral. Answers inline. On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 1:25 AM, Meral Shirazipour < meral.shirazip...@ericsson.com> 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

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-repute-model-08

Hi Roni, I didn't see your previous review for some reason. I can't respond in full now as I'm about to travel, but I will over the long weekend (unless Andrew gets to it first). Thanks, -MSK On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 4:27 AM, Roni Even wrote: > I was asked to review the 08 version but my co

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-repute-model-08

Hi Roni, sorry again for the delay. On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 4:27 AM, Roni Even wrote: > I was asked to review the 08 version but my comments from 07 were not > addressed and I did not see any response. So I am resending my previous > review > > As for making it a standard track document, I a

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-repute-media-type-10

Hi Peter, thanks for your review. Comments inline. On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Peter Yee wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > > > Please resolve these comm

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat Review of draft-ietf-repute-email-identifiers-09

Hi Pete, On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 2:43 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/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Please wait for direction from your document shepherd > or AD bef

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-appsawg-malformed-mail-09

I think I'm going to request creation of my own private Directorate. David seems to get all my Gen-ART reviews, and we could possibly do some optimizing here. :-) On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Black, David wrote: > > Nits/editorial comments: > > The word "naked" is used a few times to refer

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc7001bis-08

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Brian E Carpenter < brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It seems the author didn't see my Last Call review, so this review has not > changed. > > Nope, I hadn't. Apologies for that. > As the writeup says, this is an update to a long document that mainly > res

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat Review of draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-11

> -Original Message- > From: Pete McCann [mailto:mc...@petoni.org] > Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 8:31 AM > To: gen-art@ietf.org; draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists@tools.ietf.org > Subject: Gen-ART Telechat Review of draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-11 > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for

Re: [Gen-art] GenART LC review of draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-01

Hi Roni, thanks for your comments. Two things in reply: First, this is not an Informational document, it's Standards Track. I don't know if that changes anything in your review, however. Second, Section 1 does describe the change being made between RFC3462 and this document, and the rationale fo

Re: [Gen-art] GenART LC review of draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-01

From: Roni Even [mailto:ron.even@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2011 10:51 PM To: Murray S. Kucherawy; draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis@tools.ietf.org Cc: gen-art@ietf.org; 'IETF-Discussion list' Subject: RE: GenART LC review of draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-01 Hi, My mistake abo

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-Art review of draft-kucherawy-dkim-atps-11

Hi Alexey, thanks for the review. > -Original Message- > From: Alexey Melnikov [mailto:alexey.melni...@isode.com] > Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2011 2:20 PM > To: gen-art@ietf.org; draft-kucherawy-dkim-atps@tools.ietf.org > Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy > Subject: Gen-A

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART last call review of draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-07

> -Original Message- > From: Alexey Melnikov [mailto:alexey.melni...@isode.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2012 12:30 PM > To: Hilda L. Fontana; Murray S. Kucherawy; Pete Resnick > Cc: gen-art@ietf.org; The IESG > Subject: Gen-ART last call review of draft-ietf-marf-aut

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-marf-redaction-04

> -Original Message- > From: david.bl...@emc.com [mailto:david.bl...@emc.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 6:44 PM > To: i...@cybernothing.org; Murray S. Kucherawy; gen-art@ietf.org; > i...@ietf.org > Cc: david.bl...@emc.com; m...@ietf.org; presn...@qualcomm.com

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART last call review of draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-09

Hi Alexey, thanks for the review. > -Original Message- > From: Alexey Melnikov [mailto:alexey.melni...@isode.com] > Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 9:21 AM > To: Hilda L. Fontana; Murray S. Kucherawy; Pete Resnick > Cc: gen-art@ietf.org; The IESG > Subject: Gen-ART l

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review: draft-ietf-marf-as-13

> -Original Message- > From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thom...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 9:14 AM > To: draft-ietf-marf-as@tools.ietf.org > Cc: gen-art@ietf.org > Subject: Gen-ART review: draft-ietf-marf-as-13 Hi Martin, thanks for the review. > Minor issues: > > R

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-appsawg-greylisting

Hi Kathleen, thanks for the review. > -Original Message- > From: kathleen.moria...@emc.com [mailto:kathleen.moria...@emc.com] > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 9:59 AM > To: draft-ietf-appsawg-greylisting@tools.ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; > gen-art@ietf.org > Cc: Murray S

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-kucherawy-marf-source-ports-03

> -Original Message- > From: david.bl...@emc.com [mailto:david.bl...@emc.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 11:12 AM > To: richard.clay...@cl.cam.ac.uk; Murray S. Kucherawy; gen-art@ietf.org > Cc: david.bl...@emc.com; jo...@iecc.com; barryle...@computer.org > Subject:

Re: [Gen-art] [spfbis] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-09.txt

I have a revised version with the requested changes stuck in submission tool limbo. I'll get it posted as soon as the Secretariat can fix it. -MSK ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-08.txt

HI Suresh, RFC4627 is already in the downref registry. See http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DownrefRegistry. The template used is a simplified one being tested by request of the IESG. I'll let the editors comment on the first question. -MSK On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Sure

Re: [Gen-art] [spfbis] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 10:14 AM, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hi Meral, > > Thanks for the review. I am forwarding it to the SPFBIS mailing list for > discussion. I'll email you in a few days to address your comments. > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd) > > At 08:53 29-04-2013, Meral Sh

Re: [Gen-art] [spfbis] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:47 AM, S Moonesamy wrote: > In my opinion the reviewer read the draft very carefully. The reviewer > might have written the word "Informational" to see whether the SPFBIS > working group will read the Gen-ART review carefully. :-) > Better to ask the question now than

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-09

Hi Peter, thanks for the review. Comments inline: On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 10:38 PM, Peter Yee wrote: > Page 5, 2nd paragraph after bullet item, 1st sentence: change > "pre-standards > DomainKeys defined" to "pre-standard DomainKeys-defined". > This doesn't seem to work. The sentence is basical

Re: [Gen-art] [dmarc-ietf] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-08

(Reducing Ccs) That seems like it paints a much clearer picture, which is what Dale was after. A great start! On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 12:54 PM Todd Herr wrote: > Having reviewed the comments, I'm wondering if perhaps the following draft > rewrite of the Abstract section might be a first step to

Re: [Gen-art] [dmarc-ietf] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-08

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 8:31 PM Seth Blank wrote: > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 7:45 PM Scott Kitterman > wrote: > >> > I think you are very close to an Abstract/Introduction that is clearly >> > comprehensible to people who are not familiar with DMARC. >> >> Considering this is an extension to DMAR

Re: [Gen-art] [dmarc-ietf] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd-08

Apologies: On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 8:39 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > +1. If even a small number of people (and the GenART review itself might > be enough) thinks it's in need of this kind of improvement, I would be > surprised if the IESG sends it back to the working group for

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel-21

If you email the files to internet-dra...@ietf.org and Cc: me, I'll approve them and then the secretariat will put the update in the tracker. -MSK On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 5:39 AM Christer Holmberg < christer.holmb...@ericsson.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I have created a new version (-22) of the draft,

Re: [Gen-art] [DNSOP] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-zone-digest-09

On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 3:09 PM Elwyn Davies via Datatracker < nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > Reviewer: Elwyn Davies > 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

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-jsonpath-base-17

I'm also quite puzzled by this review. On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 11:18 AM Linda Dunbar via Datatracker < nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > Major issues: > The major issue is that this document should not be “Standard Track” > because: > 1. Existing parsers for JSON data don’t need to change to comply

Re: [Gen-art] Genart Last Call review of draft-freed-smtp-limits-06

On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 9:49 AM Paul Kyzivat wrote: > > Section 7.2 seems to conflate two things: > > - the information that must be provided in a specification >document that registers new limits > > - the information that is to included in the registry itself > > ISTM that the registry itse