Dear Eric,
Please see my feedbacks inline. I've removed the clarified items.
Regards,
Linlin
Linlin Zhou
--
DISCUSS:
--
Rich version of this review at:
htt
Thank you Scott. I checked the RFC7451, the registration should be updated like
this,
Name of Extension: Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Organization Mapping
Document Status: Standards Track
Reference: RFC
Registrant Name and Email Address: IESG, i...@ietf.org
TLDs: Any
IPR Disclosu
Linlin, you might want to keep some text in the document so that the RFC Editor
knows to change "" to the assigned RFC number and IANA knows to use that
number.
Scott
From: Linlin Zhou
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 4:33 AM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott ; regext
Cc: iesg
Subject: [EXTERNAL]
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 1:17 AM Linlin Zhou wrote:
> Dear Eric,
> Please see my feedbacks inline. I've removed the clarified items.
>
> Regards,
> Linlin
> --
> Linlin Zhou
>
>
>
>> --
>> DISCUSS:
>> -
Reviewer: Valery Smyslov
Review result: Ready with Nits
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors. Do
Thank you for the review and feedback. I can understand the confusion if
you're not familiar with the EPP protocol. I attempt to clarify things below.
The info command and the poll command are different commands, but where the
confusion lies is with the response. A poll response can be any
Hi James,
thank you for clarification. I presume all these things are clear for those who
are familiar with EPP,
and probably most of potential readers of this document fall into this
category, but if you can add short
explanation for the others it would be great.
Regards,
Valery Smyslov.
>
[as Area Director]
Hi!
While I appreciate that the proposal you've put forth is trying to
ensure that popular or urgent work doesn't end up getting blocked on
lower priority items (and pushed into other venues), we have pretty
solid historical data that shows that the approach you're describi
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 09:55:22AM +0800, Linlin Zhou wrote:
> Dear Benjamin,
> Please see my feedbacks below. I've removed the clarified items.
>
> Regards,
> Linlin
>
>
> Linlin Zhou
>
> From: Benjamin Kaduk
> Date: 2018-10-25 02:34
> To: Linlin Zhou
> CC: iesg; regext-chairs; Pieter Vandepi
Perhaps priority should be given to those I-Ds with running code.
-andy
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 12:41 PM Adam Roach wrote:
>
> [as Area Director]
>
> Hi!
>
> While I appreciate that the proposal you've put forth is trying to ensure
> that popular or urgent work doesn't end up getting blocked on
Dear Benjamin,
I've included my feedbacks inline and removed the clarified items.
Regards,
Linlin
Linlin Zhou
> --
> DISCUSS:
> --
> Second, I am unsure of t
Dear Martin,
Thank you for your review. Please see my feedbacks inline.
Regards,
Linlin
Linlin Zhou
From: Martin Thomson
Date: 2018-10-26 05:09
To: regext
Subject: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-org extensibility comments
Hi,
I was asked to review draft-ietf-regext-org for the XML namespace and
Hi Scott,
Thank you for your information. I'll remember to add the text in the brackets.
Regards,
Linlin
Linlin Zhou
From: Hollenbeck, Scott
Date: 2018-10-29 19:11
To: 'zhoulin...@cnnic.cn'; 'regext@ietf.org'
CC: 'i...@ietf.org'
Subject: Re: [regext] IANA Considerations for draft-ietf-regext-o
13 matches
Mail list logo
