At 13:16 03-09-2013, Barry Leiba wrote:
I agree with Scott that the stuff between the commas doesn't belong here.
That is, it doesn't belong *here*; it can certainly go into a sentence
or paragraph with advice for native English speakers. Consider
something like this instead:
Participants m
Hi Lorenzo
Answers below
David
De : v6ops-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de
Lorenzo Colitti
Envoyé : mercredi 4 septembre 2013 10:04
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
Cc : v6...@ietf.org WG; IETF Discussion
Objet : Re: [v6ops] Last Call:
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 3:31 PM, wrote:
> it is about ** a ** profile for mobile devices.
>
But wait... if it's just *a* profile, then why is the IETF publishing this
particular profile, and not any other profile? Is this an IETF recommended
profile? If, so then the document should state why. If n
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:29 PM, wrote:
> **
>
> But wait... if it's just *a* profile, then why is the IETF publishing this
> particular profile, and not any other profile? Is this an IETF recommended
> profile? If, so then the document should state why. If not, then the
> document should state th
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 6:07 PM, wrote:
> Ok. So maybe you can put in the draft that this profile is a profile
> supported by several operators, but not necessarily endorsed by the IETF?
> **
>
> *[Med] The document followed the IETF procedures and was benefited from
> the inputs and review of IET
Hi Lorenzo,
We already answered to several of the points in previous discussions (during
the call for adoption and also during the WGLC). We also made some changes in
the last version to make the language clear
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-05): it is
about
Re-,
See inline.
Cheers,
Med
De : Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lore...@google.com]
Envoyé : mercredi 4 septembre 2013 10:51
À : BINET David IMT/OLN
Cc : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; v6...@ietf.org WG; IETF Discussion
Objet : Re: [v6ops] Last Call:
(Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP
Re-,
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
De : Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lore...@google.com]
Envoyé : mercredi 4 septembre 2013 11:25
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
Cc : BINET David IMT/OLN; v6...@ietf.org WG; IETF Discussion
Objet : Re: [v6ops] Last Call:
(Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile fo
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 06:25:17PM +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> > Sure, but the majority are mandatory, and don't forget that some of them
> > are quite large (e.g., "implement RFC 6204"). Also, I believe it's not the
> > IETF's role to produce vendor requirements documents. The considerati
Dear Abdussalam,
Many thanks for your review and suggestions.
The changes you proposed have been integrated in -05 (see
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-05).
As for your question about IP mobility, this is not relevant in the context of
this document. Mobi
>> The only concern I have is that once we do this -- declare that PS is
>> always more mature than that -- we can't go back. Do we *really* want
>> to say that we will never again approve a PS spec that's partially
>> baked? This is painting us into the room where PS is mature and
>> robust. If
> OK, somebody has to say it. Maybe we should have another state,
> something like draft standard.
[ sob alluded to a private message from me which said ]
while i really like the idea of pushing well-tested interoperable
documents to full standards, i think tested interop is key here.
hence i li
On 9/4/2013 11:14 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
The only concern I have is that once we do this -- declare that PS is
always more mature than that -- we can't go back. Do we *really* want
to say that we will never again approve a PS spec that's parti
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>> The only concern I have is that once we do this -- declare that PS is
>>> always more mature than that -- we can't go back. Do we *really* want
>>> to say that we will never again approve a PS spec that's partially
>>> baked? This is painti
All
I've been out on leave since just after Berlin (which I had to cancel
at the last minute, so I wasn't able to attend in realtime, or
present the INSIPID reqs and solutions drafts - which I normally do
at each IETF). Somewhere along the way, it was decided that
draft-kaplan-insipid-session
At 02:43 04-09-2013, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
[Med] The document followed the IETF procedures and was benefited
from the inputs and review of IETF participants; and as such it is
an IETF document. We included text to precise this is not a standard
but an informational document. FWIW,
The Reviewer: Abdussalam Baryun
Date: 05.09.2013
I-D name: draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results
Received your Request dated 04.09.2013
++
The reviewer supports the draft subject to amendments. Overall the
survey is not easy to be used as source of information related to
John C Klensin wrote:
>> Still, the draft may assure new usages compatible with each
>> other.
>
> That is the hope.
The problem is that an existing and an new usages may not be
compatible.
>> If we need subtypes because 16bit RRTYPE space is not enough
>> (I don't think so), the issue should b
18 matches
Mail list logo
