Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-opsec-vpn-leakages-02

On Dec 12, 2013, at 6:10 PM, Russ Housley wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > . > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you m

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-dnsop-delegation-trust-maintainance-13.txt

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > (sorry, retransmission with corrected address) Yeah, I do that as well, especially with directorate reviews... > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. Thank you, A: for doing the review, and B: doing it early. Apologie

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-dnsop-delegation-trust-maintainance-13.txt

Brian, can you please re-check? Olafur and I both replied -- I've just gotten off a plane and so cannot easily resend, will do tomorrow if you didn't get our mails... W On Thursday, June 5, 2014, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on >

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-dnsop-delegation-trust-maintainance-13.txt

I replied 6 days ago, Olafur followed up 3 days ago. Maybe you have us kill-filled? :-) W On Thursday, June 5, 2014, Warren Kumari wrote: > Brian, can you please re-check? > > Olafur and I both replied -- I've just gotten off a plane and so cannot > easily resend, will d

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-dnsop-delegation-trust-maintainance-13.txt

h this space for a corrected review. > > Regards >Brian > > On 06/06/2014 13:37, Warren Kumari wrote: > > I replied 6 days ago, Olafur followed up 3 days ago. > > > > Maybe you have us kill-filled? :-) > > > > W > > > > On Thursday, Ju

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors-10

On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 7:43 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > First off, thank you for your review. I have integrated all of your change

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors-10

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote: > Hi Warren, > > Thanks for addressing my comments! Most look ok now, but I still have > comments on a couple of the issues. > > > General > > --- > > QG_1: > >>> In the document text, you sometimes say “Negative Trust Anchor” and

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-13

On Saturday, July 11, 2015, Christian Huitema wrote: > > On Saturday, July 11, 2015 8:50 AM, joel jaeggli wrote > > > ... > > [5] Section 5: > > > >Fake > >DHCP servers / fake RAs are currently a security concern - this > >doesn't make them any better or worse. > > > > Please cite a r

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-13

Okey dokey, I'm happy to add something. Does anyone have any suggested text? W On Monday, July 13, 2015, Sam Hartman wrote: > >>>>> "Warren" == Warren Kumari > writes: > > Warren>On Saturday, July 11, 2015, Christian Huitema >

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors-11

On Thursday, August 20, 2015, Christer Holmberg < christer.holmb...@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/GenArtfaq> > > Document: > draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-tr

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-15

security by making users more reluctant to accept TLS hijacking, which can be performed from beyond the network associated with the captive portal. Nits: s/describe/describes/ - done (in earlier rev). Mentioned that the URI is not null terminated. > Thanks, > --David > >> -O

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-wkumari-dhc-capport-15

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Black, David wrote: > The -16 version looks good, Thanks, --David > Thank you, and apologies again for missing them the first time. W >> -Original Message----- >> From: Warren Kumari [mailto:war...@kumari.net] >> Sent: Monday, August

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors-12

Think you for the review, and for following up. W On Sunday, September 6, 2015, Christer Holmberg < christer.holmb...@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/Gen

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet-04

> > NOTES TO AUTHORS: I went to try integrate these changes and discovered that the most recently published version of the document is -04, but the version in github ( https://github.com/wkumari/draft-vandergaast-edns-client-subnet ) is version -06. I have rolled this back to -05 and published as

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet-04

Hi all, I think it is much easier for reviewers to always be able to see the latest version of a draft, and so I'm trying to integrate changes and then publish new version often. On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 11:50 AM David C Lawrence wrote: > > > In Section 7.1.1, can you add a sentence or reference

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-08

A very quick note (I'm on a plane, door about to close). We recognize that this document has issues; the primary author has become busy with other stuff, and many of the other authors have changed companies / roles. The chairs are finding some additional authors to provide assistance. Your commen

Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse-09

Good catch -- these were included in the IETF Last Call notice, and there was discussion with the chairs and responsible AD. They will be noted in the downref registry; however, the write-up should have included a mention of this. I've CCed the chairs / will ask the AD to update the write-up for co

Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-grow-large-communities-usage-07

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Job Snijders wrote: > Thanks Stewart! Yes, indeed. Thank you Stewart - Directorate reviews are always appreciated. W > > On Mon, 8 May 2017 at 18:42, Stewart Bryant > wrote: >> >> Reviewer: Stewart Bryant >> Review result: Ready >> >> I am the assigned Gen-ART

Re: [Gen-art] [GROW] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-07

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 is agreement, so upload a new version. I think that the new text improves the document, thanks for the

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bmwg-vswitch-opnfv-03

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Dan Romascanu wrote: > Hi, > > Please see in-line. > > Regards, > > Dan > > > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 8:00 PM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) > wrote: >> >> Hi Dan, >> please see replies, [ACM], below. >> >> > -Original Message- >> > From: Dan Romascanu [mailto:dro

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-10

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > On 12/13/17 3:56 AM, Duzongpeng wrote: >> >> Hi, Paul >> >> Please see inline. >> Thank you very much for your careful review. >> We have updated the draft accordingly. >> If any problem, please connect us. >> >

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-tree-validation-02

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 4:17 AM Tim Bruijnzeels wrote: > > Hi Linda, > > We took this to the WG because we wanted a few things out of it: > 1) get feedback and ensure that the algorithm used by our validator is > correct (even if it is not the only way to do this) > 2) provide transparency to our

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-idr-as0-05

On Aug 23, 2012, at 8:27 AM, Elwyn Davies wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. Cool, and thank you for performing the review... > For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > > . > > Please resolve these

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-deployment-06

On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 6:52 AM Jordi Palet Martínez wrote: > > Hi Meral, > > > > I just realized, if I understood correctly, that from GENART the review is > completed, however, this has not been reflected at the document page: > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-deplo

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-7706bis-07

On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 8:02 AM Ines Robles via Datatracker wrote: > > Reviewer: Ines Robles > 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.

Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-opsawg-sdi-02.txt

Wow, apologies, I had completely missed this email -- I have a complex set of filtering rules to allow me to focus on drafts on the upcoming telechats, and this fell into the cracks. On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 10:57 AM Francis Dupont wrote: > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The

Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-opsawg-sdi-02.txt

Whoops, apologies, I just realized that I forgot to mention that I've posted a new version (-05) addressing these / hit send too soon. Thank you again, Francis. W On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 12:09 PM Warren Kumari wrote: > > Wow, apologies, I had completely missed this email -- I hav

Re: [Gen-art] [Ext] [DNSOP] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis-10

On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 7:22 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Oct 18, 2022, at 7:58 AM, Ron Even wrote: > > 1. whis is this an informational RFC and not a standard track RFC. > > That's a reasonable question with a simple answer: because the WG changed > its mind on what the status of this protocol

Re: [Gen-art] [Ext] [DNSOP] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis-10

On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 7:22 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On Oct 18, 2022, at 7:58 AM, Ron Even wrote: > > 1. whis is this an informational RFC and not a standard track RFC. > > That's a reasonable question with a simple answer: because the WG changed > its mind on what the status of this protocol

Re: [Gen-art] [Ext] [DNSOP] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis-10

On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 12:41 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 7:22 AM, Paul Hoffman > wrote: > >> On Oct 18, 2022, at 7:58 AM, Ron Even wrote: >> >> 1. whis is this an informational RFC and not a standard track RFC. >> >> That'

Re: [Gen-art] [Ext] [DNSOP] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis-10

On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 2:54 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 12:41 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 7:22 AM, Paul Hoffman >> wrote: >> >>> On Oct 18, 2022, at 7:58 AM, Ron Even wrote: >>> >>> 1. whis is

Re: [Gen-art] [DNSOP] [Last-Call] [Ext] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-09

On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 9:33 AM, Paul Wouters wrote: > On Sun, 17 Sep 2023, Salz, Rich wrote: > > [ speaking as individual only ] > > On the other hand, spending a week or two repeating a cycle to get an > important term in the current document seems like a better solution. > > If the WG agrees t