Hi,
This text is just relevant to G.729.1 and not to other codecs, so if you
want to add a reason for the SHOULD it should be based on RFC4749
implementations that would not send M=1. Maybe the text should say that if
DTX is offered the sender must set the M bit according to RFC 3551.
Roni
-Or
e the
SHOULD by a MUST in the current text.
What option seems the best?
Aurelien
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Roni Even [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Envoyé : mardi 23 septembre 2008 12:46
> À : 'Spencer Dawkins'; SOLLAUD Aurelien RD-CORE-LAN
> Cc : [EMAI
which
may add skew but it is not because of NTP.
Roni Even
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Das,
Saumitra
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 11:31 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] P2PSIP diagnostics: PING discussion
Hi Song
PU current usage are
good but the question is if they are relevant for the decision since the
user may limit the amount of resources it wants to allocate for the p2p
application. This may be based on percentage from the link or number of
connections.
Roni Even
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mai
tch-08
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2012-12-16
IETF LC End Date: 2012-12-25
IESG Telechat date: 2013-1-10
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
1. The document has as the intended status "Informational" while the
las
ameter-encoding-02
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2012-12-17
IETF LC End Date: 2012-12-14
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as Standard track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
viewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2013-1-15
IETF LC End Date: 2013-1-22
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as Standard track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
1. I had some problem when reading the document about what is
mandatory to suppor
ana-01
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2013-1-21
IETF LC End Date: 2013-2-14
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as Standard track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
ups-04
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2013-2-13
IETF LC End Date: 2013-2-28
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
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 comments along with any other Last Call comments you
may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-ancp-pon-04
Reviewer
ool-03
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2013-3-25
IETF LC End Date: 2013-3-26
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
1. In table 1 the Transform ID are specified as TBD1 to TBD4. I
notice
ons-on-ipv4-nets-03
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2013-4-6
IETF LC End Date: 2013-4-12
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
1. I found this draft very information
ons-on-ipv4-nets-03
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2013-4-6
IETF LC End Date: 2013-4-12
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
1. I found this draft very information
cfg-10
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2013-4-28
IETF LC End Date: 2013-5-3
IESG Telechat date: 2013-5-16
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as Standard track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
1. I had some problem understanding the "location" leaf.
s.ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org;
gen-...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-10
Hi,
Thank you for your review. Comments inline.
"Roni Even" wrote:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> Gen-ART, pleas
draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-10
Hi,
"Roni Even" wrote:
> Martin,
> Thanks for the response. I am OK with your responses to the nits.
>
> As for the comment on location I think I understand but what got me
> thinking was the examples.
> In E.1
>
> "An op
s-caps-05
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2013-5-29
IETF LC End Date: 2013-6-4
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as Standard track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
1. I can understand from the draft that when you have IP and PSTN
nett
Roni,
Please see my answer below prefixed with [SV].
From: ext Roni Even [mailto:ron.even@gmail.com]
Sent: 29. toukokuuta 2013 21:13
To: draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps@tools.ietf.org
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; gen-...@ietf.org
Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp
From: ext Roni Even [mailto:ron.even@gmail.com]
Sent: 4. kesäkuuta 2013 2:26
To: Veikkolainen Simo (Nokia-CTO/Espoo);
draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps@tools.ietf.org
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; gen-...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of
draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-miscellaneous-caps-05
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 comments along with any other Last Call comments you
may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-pkix-est-07
Reviewer
viewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2013-6-30
IETF LC End Date: 2013-7-23
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as Standard track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
In section 1 you reference TLS 1.0 and 1.1 usage based on RFC 4492. What
about TLS 1.2
If this is true it make me wonder why does the IETF care about the
affiliation of WG chairs and ADs
Roni Even
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mark
Atwood
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 7:17 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Public musing on the nature of
-reschke-webdav-post-06
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2010-04-12
IETF LC End Date: 2010-05-07
IESG Telechat date: (if known):
Summary: This draft is roughly ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.
I have three nits of which I am not sure since I am reading this draft
without the
.
Document: draft-turner-asymmetrickeyformat-05
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2010-4-18
IESG Telechat date: 2010-4-22
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard. I have
some nits
Nits/editorial comments:
1. In section 7 what you are registering is a
specific registries is
important. I know that they are not maintained by IANA but hopefully someone
is maintain them and need to be notified of these two OIDs allocations.
Thanks
Roni Even
> -Original Message-
> From: Sean Turner [mailto:turn...@ieca.com]
> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 201
Hi,
This was my question, if you registered the OIDs then it is OK.
Roni Even
> -Original Message-
> From: Sean Turner [mailto:turn...@ieca.com]
> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2010 11:19 PM
> To: Roni Even
> Cc: 'General Area Review Team'; ietf@ietf.org; draft-turn
-ietf-csi-send-cert-03
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2010-05-02
IETF LC End Date: 2010-05-14
IESG Telechat date: (if known):
Summary: This draft is roughly ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.
I have some comments and nits:
Comments:
The first two comments are about changes from
-ietf-csi-send-cert-03
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2010-05-02
IETF LC End Date: 2010-05-14
IESG Telechat date: (if known):
Summary: This draft is roughly ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.
I have some comments and nits:
Comments:
The first two comments are about changes from
.
Document: draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation-05
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2010-05-17
IETF LC End Date:
IESG Telechat date: (if known): 2010-05-20
Summary: This draft is not meant to be published.
This memo is a Preliminary Evaluation of RFC5321, Simple Mail Transfer
Protocol
.
Document: draft-reschke-webdav-post-07
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2010-05-17
IETF LC End Date: 2010-05-07
IESG Telechat date: (if known): 2010-05-20
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.
I reviewed version 06 and there are no changes. I got response on my
Even
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave CROCKER [mailto:d...@dcrocker.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 12:47 AM
> To: Roni Even
> Cc: 'General Area Review Team'; draft-ietf-yam-5321bis-smtp-pre-
> evaluation@tools.ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re:
t two interoperable
implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard
level only if those options or features are removed."
Roni Even
> -Original Message-
> From: SM [mailto:s...@resistor.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 12:37 PM
> To: Roni Ev
OK
Thanks
Roni
> -Original Message-
> From: Tony Hansen [mailto:t...@att.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 3:29 PM
> To: Roni Even
> Cc: dcroc...@bbiw.net; 'General Area Review Team'; draft-ietf-yam-
> 5321bis-smtp-pre-evaluation@tools.ietf.org; ietf@iet
disruptive, and force a re-negotiation of the secure session.
If so, the draft needs to state this explicitly.
Roni Even
> -Original Message-
> From: avt-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:avt-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Philip Zimmermann
> Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 7:31 AM
> To:
bility-mobility-signaling-17
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:
IETF LC End Date: 2010-06-17
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This draft where type is Informational is on the right track but
has open issues, described in the review.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
1. Section 6 say
bility-mobility-signaling-17
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:
IETF LC End Date: 2010-06-17
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This draft where type is Informational is on the right track but
has open issues, described in the review.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
1. Section 6 say
e-conv-meth-21
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:
IETF LC End Date: 2010-06-25
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
There are some nits.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
1. All over the do
up
because the carriers object to implement it and not due to any other reason
like preferences of enterprises IT to use PSTN for calls because of better
quality of service and manageability.
Roni Even
> -Original Message-
> From: dispatch-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dispatch-boun...@ietf.
-ipsec-group-counter-modes-05
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: July 12, 2010
IETF LC End Date: 2010-07-23
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as Proposed Standard RFC.
The document is short, easy to read and I have no comments.
Major issues:
-ipsec-group-counter-modes-05
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: July 12, 2010
IETF LC End Date: 2010-07-23
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as Proposed Standard RFC.
The document is short, easy to read and I have no comments.
Major issues:
teredo-extensions-07
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: August 4, 2010
IETF LC End Date: 2010-08-12
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This draft is roughly ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.
I have some comments:
Major issues: None
Minor issues:
1. In section 4.1 define
tement-07
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: August 24, 2010
IETF LC End Date: 2010-08-23
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This draft is ready for publication where the intended type is
informational.
I have a comment: Reading the document it looks to me that the problem
statement descri
-ps-04
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2010-10-03
IETF LC End Date:
IESG Telechat date: 2010-10-7
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
___
Ietf m
-ps-04
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2010-10-03
IETF LC End Date:
IESG Telechat date: 2010-10-7
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
___
Ietf m
req-08
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2010-10-25
IETF LC End Date: 2010-11-10
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
1. In section 2 why not reference RFC 2119 or at least copy the
definitio
req-08
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2010-10-25
IETF LC End Date: 2010-11-10
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
1. In section 2 why not reference RFC 2119 or at least copy the
definitio
Hi,
I sent the following review on October 25th but did not see and response.
Roni Even
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
rotect-control-plane-04
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2010-11-28
IETF LC End Date: 2010-12-3
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC. There
are some nits and minor issue.
Major issues:
Minor issues: The example in appe
age-
> From: Rodney Dunn [mailto:rod...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 6:09 PM
> To: Joel Jaeggli
> Cc: Roni Even; General Area Review Team; IETF-Discussion list; draft-
> ietf-opsec-protect-control-plane@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-
Hi Joe,
Thanks
Inline
Roni
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Salowey [mailto:jsalo...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 7:42 AM
> To: Roni Even
> Cc: 'General Area Review Team'; draft-ietf-emu-eaptunnel-
> req@tools.ietf.org; 'IETF-Discus
t-lost-servicelistboundary-04
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2010-12-04
IETF LC End Date: 2010-12-14
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Experimental RFC. There
are some nits
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
1.
ics-14
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2010-12-20
IETF LC End Date: 2011-1-5
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an Standard track
RFC.
Major issues:
No Major issues
Minor issues:
1. In section 2.1 after figure 1 you specify the different
eep-10
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2010-12-28
IETF LC End Date: 2011-1-5
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a Standard track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
1. In the document you mention that the keep alive can be negotiated in
each direct
Hi Christer,
I am OK with all your responses
regards
Roni
> -Original Message-
> From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:christer.holmb...@ericsson.com]
> Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2011 12:20 PM
> To: Roni Even; gen-...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-sipcore-
> keep@tools.ietf.
Hi Karl,
I looked at the 05 version and it does not look like you fixed the nits
Roni
From: Karl Heinz Wolf [mailto:karlheinz.w...@nic.at]
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 10:28 AM
To: Roni Even; General Area Review Team;
draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-servicelistboundary@tools.ietf.org
Cc: IETF
update-02
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2011-1-23
IETF LC End Date: 2011-2-8
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Standard track RFC.
Major issues:
none
Minor issues:
None
Nits/editorial comments:
None
__
-extra-lite-03
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2011-1-24
IETF LC End Date: 2011-2-10
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
This document has a standard track intended status. It looks to me more of
informational type.
map-14
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2011-1-23
IETF LC End Date: 2011-1-24
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Standard track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
1. The document starts with Contributo
Yaakov,
Yes this is what I mean
Roni
From: Yaakov Stein [mailto:yaako...@rad.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 5:47 PM
To: Roni Even; draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map@tools.ietf.org;
gen-...@ietf.org
Cc: 'IETF-Discussion list'
Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-pwe3-o
im-api-15
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2011-2-1
IETF LC End Date: 2011-2-10
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as Informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
1. In section 8.2 the path exploration parameters are different from
RF
Hi Shinta,
I am OK with all your proposals
Thanks
Roni
> -Original Message-
> From: Shinta Sugimoto [mailto:shi...@sfc.wide.ad.jp]
> Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2011 3:29 PM
> To: Roni Even
> Cc: draft-ietf-shim6-multihome-shim-api@tools.ietf.org; gen-
> a...@ietf.org
ailbox-search-06
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2011-2-20
IETF LC End Date: 2011-2-28
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as Experimental RFC.
Major issues:
None
Minor issues:
None
Nits/editorial comments:
ailbox-search-06
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2011-2-20
IETF LC End Date: 2011-2-28
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as Experimental RFC.
Major issues:
None
Minor issues:
None
Nits/editorial comments:
viewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2011-3-4
IETF LC End Date: 2011-3-18
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as Informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
In section 5 and in section 6.1 second bullet you mention that the end to
end connection
Hi,
My impression from reading the document and according to figure 1 was that
all end host communication was done in a UDP tunnel. So what is the relation
of the TCP connection to BTMM.
Roni Even
From: Lixia Zhang [mailto:li...@cs.ucla.edu]
Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2011 7:52 AM
To: Roni
racker-community-06
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2011-3-10
IETF LC End Date: 2011-3-18
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as Informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
1. In section 1 "The returned list of I-Ds and/or RF
Hi,
I reviewed version 7 and all my comments were addressed.
Roni Even
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:paul.hoff...@vpnc.org]
> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 6:08 AM
> To: Roni Even
> Cc: draft-ietf-genarea-datatracker-community@tools.ietf.org; gen-
uth-03
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2011-4-11
IETF LC End Date: 2011-4-23
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an Experimental RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
1. In section 8.5 and 8.6 the draft says that "If no more p
k-lite-07
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2011-4-10
IETF LC End Date: 2011-4-12
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as standard track RFC.
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
1. In section 8.3 NAT-44 appears w
"none" technique and therefore may not
find an interoperable mode.
If the initiator will use "none" technique than you will have
interoperability.
Roni
> -Original Message-
> From: Dan Harkins [mailto:dhark...@lounge.org]
> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 3:39 AM
>
mrt-01
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2011-4-26
IETF LC End Date: 2011-4-29
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
This is more out of curiosity
1. Why not include it in draft-ietf-grow-mrt-14
2. Why
hanced-dsmap-09
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2011-5-24
IETF LC End Date: 2011-5-30
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a standard track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
1. Need to expand LDP when first mention
nal Message-
> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 1:16 PM
> To: 'Roni Even'; draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-
> dsmap@tools.ietf.org
> Cc: gen-...@ietf.org; 'IETF-Discussion list'
> Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review
viewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2011-5-29
IETF LC End Date: 2011-6-6
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standard track RFC.
Major issues:
1. I am not sure how the IANA consideration section is in-line with
the IANA consideration section of R
sts-02
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2011-6-21
IETF LC End Date: 2011-6-30
IESG Telechat date: 2011-6-30
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a standard track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
__
viewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2011-6-27
IETF LC End Date: 2011-7-4
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a standard track RFC.
Please note the Nits.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
1. The "requirement language" i
bis-05
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2011-7-6
IETF LC End Date: 2011-7-13
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a standard track RFC. One
nit
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
In section 3 fifth paragraph ""An alternativ
ort-06
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2011-7-31
IETF LC End Date: 2011-8-9
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
I read in section 3.2
"The IESG has determined that IONs will not be used in the fu
v-meth-23
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2011-8-16
IETF LC End Date: 2011-8-19
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
I find that the document provides in depth testing procedures and reporting.
mrt-05
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2011-8-20
IETF LC End Date: 2011-8-26
IESG Telechat date: 2011-8-25
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a standard track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
1. Section 5 "This section is to a
viewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2011-9-7
IETF LC End Date: 2011-9-27
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is not ready for publication as an informational RFC.
Major issues:
The IANA considerations section says:
"the values already allocated are in Table 1 of Sect
Hi Qin,
Thanks for the review see inline
Roni
From: payload-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:payload-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Qin Wu
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 9:16 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: payl...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [payload] [Payload] Last Call:
(RTP Payload Format for DV (IEC
6183
ements-06
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2011-9-29
IETF LC End Date: 2011-10-3
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial co
bis-01
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2011-10-1
IETF LC End Date: 2011-10-10
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
I noticed that the major change from RFC 3462 in the current version is to
other behavior. Can the sender of the report know if it can send the
report in another multipart MIME message.
Thanks
Roni Even
From: Murray S. Kucherawy [mailto:m...@cloudmark.com]
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 7:29 AM
To: Roni Even; draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis@tools.ietf.org
Cc: gen
ound (inside message/*
MIME parts). There has not been any report of interoperability problems as
a result. This factored into the working group's consensus.
-MSK
From: Roni Even [mailto:ron.even@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2011 10:51 PM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy; draf
viewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2011-10-29
IETF LC End Date: 2011-10-31
IESG Telechat date: 2011-11-3
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an experimental RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
1. The IANA section is not clear. It talks about three new tables but
app-00
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2011-10-29
IETF LC End Date: 2011-10-20
IESG Telechat date: 2011-11-3
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a standard track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
I noticed that the example in sectio
bis-02
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2011-10-30
IETF LC End Date: 2011-10-23
IESG Telechat date: 2011-12-1
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an standard track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial co
-ps-07
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2011-10-30
IETF LC End Date: 2011-11-4
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an informational RFC.
Major issues:
I do not have any editorial issues but I am not sure about the value of the
document. I saw th
Hi,
I support this view.
Furthermore I believe that even though people are allowed to have their
opinions about a specific country politics or values the IETF is not the
place to bring them forward regardless of the meeting location. The IETF is
a technical body and not the UN.
Roni Even
Melinda,
I see a difference between addressing requirements for protocol that address
national regulatory services and voicing an opinion about national
regulatory policies.
I also noticed that the issues raised on the mailing list were wider than
national regulatory services
Roni Even
parties, which means
that the codec may change by the IETF anyhow.
Thanks
Roni Even
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Robert Elz
> Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 10:40 PM
> To: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI
parties, which means
that the codec may change by the IETF anyhow.
Thanks
Roni Even
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Robert Elz
> Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 10:40 PM
> To: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI
Hi,
In line
Roni Even
> -Original Message-
> From: k...@munnari.oz.au [mailto:k...@munnari.oz.au]
> Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2009 11:47 AM
> To: Roni Even
> Cc: 'Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)'; i...@ietf.org;
> ietf@ietf.org; co...@ietf.org
> S
is
enough knowledge to evaluate the work by the participants.
I am also curious about which area should have this WG, I am not sure it is
RAI work, in the past there were discussions if even AVT should be in RAI or
transport.
Roni Even
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ie
Hannes,
To me the discussion suggests that what is missing in the charter is a
requirement for a gap analysis document after finalizing the requirements.
There was an email from Cullen on January 7th discussing this point
Roni Even
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ie
Hi Jean-Marc,
I was happy to see your sentence " especially the fact that what we are
proposing here is to take *four* non-standard codecs and make one standard
codec out of them."
I hope that the charter will be strict about that.
Roni Even
> -Original Message-
>
Hi Sjoerd,
I noticed that you mentioned that you ran into these situations, can you be
more specific about what were the requirements, which codec were considered
and why they were not good for your customers.
This may help with selecting a good codec.
Thanks
Roni Even
> -Original Mess
mib-04
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2011-11-20
IETF LC End Date: 2011-11-29
IESG Telechat date: 2011-12-1
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a standard RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
The last sentence in section 5.10 (TBD ...)
1 - 100 of 139 matches
Mail list logo
