Christian Vogt | 1 Feb 08:27 2007
Picon

Re: Gen-ART Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba-02.txt

Eric -

> For some reason, in your response, my "bulletization" of the
> list of the new status codes somehow got "re-paragraphed" -
> hopefully my version below does not suffer the same fate.

Oh, no, this was probably one of my Thunderbird extensions for "nicer"
quotations.  It's now deinstalled.

Anyway, your suggested bulletization is fine in your emails and I got
your point.

> Typographical "resets" should be absolutely disallowed in 
> E-Mail.  :-)
> 
> To the casual reader, it may otherwise be unclear exactly
> what change I was suggesting...

Yes.

Will incorporate your suggestions into the draft ASAP.  Thanks!

- Christian

--

-- 
Christian Vogt, Institute of Telematics, Universitaet Karlsruhe (TH)
www.tm.uka.de/~chvogt/pubkey/
Mark Townsley | 1 Feb 10:59 2007
Picon

Re: Gen-ART Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba-02.txt

Christian Vogt wrote:
> Eric -
>
>   
>> For some reason, in your response, my "bulletization" of the
>> list of the new status codes somehow got "re-paragraphed" -
>> hopefully my version below does not suffer the same fate.
>>     
>
> Oh, no, this was probably one of my Thunderbird extensions for "nicer"
> quotations.  It's now deinstalled.
>
> Anyway, your suggested bulletization is fine in your emails and I got
> your point.
>
>   
>> Typographical "resets" should be absolutely disallowed in 
>> E-Mail.  :-)
>>
>> To the casual reader, it may otherwise be unclear exactly
>> what change I was suggesting...
>>     
>
> Yes.
>
> Will incorporate your suggestions into the draft ASAP.  Thanks!
>   
I moved the state to revised id needed for now, if you get the new draft 
in my 2/15 I should be able to get this on the 2/22 telechat.

(Continue reading)

Mary Barnes | 2 Feb 04:31 2007

Review assignments for 08 Feb 2007

Hi all,

Here's the assignments for the Feb 8th, 2007 telechat:
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/reviewers-070208.html

With the updated spreadsheets:
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-by-reviewer.html

For your convenience, the review boilerplate template is included below.

Mary. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: 
Reviewer: 
Review Date:  
IESG Telechat date: 08 Feb 2007

Summary:

Comments:
(Continue reading)

Mary Barnes | 2 Feb 04:32 2007

A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 1 Feb 2007

Hi all,

Here's this week's LC assignments: 
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art.html 
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-by-reviewer.html 

The standard template is included at the end of the assignments.  

Thanks, 
Mary. 

--------------------------- 
Reviewer: Eric Gray

- 'Definitions and Managed Objects for OAM Functions on Ethernet Like 
   Interfaces '
   <draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-mib-05.txt> as a Proposed Standard

IETF LC ends on 2007-02-09. 

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-mib-05.txt

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=
11360&rfc_flag=0

--------------------------- 
Reviewer: Francis Dupont

(Continue reading)

Brian E Carpenter | 2 Feb 15:59 2007
Picon

Re: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-l2tpext-failover-11.txt

I'm going to No Objection and I suppose you'll do an RFC Editor note.

    Brian

On 2007-01-30 16:39, Mark Townsley wrote:
> 
> On second look, this is rather small. Vipin, I can do either. If you 
> wish to provide me text in "OLD" "NEW" format, or a new document.
> 
> - Mark
> 
> Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for
>> draft-ietf-l2tpext-failover-11.txt
>>
>> For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
>> <http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.
>>
>> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
>> you may receive.
>>
>> Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits
>> that should be fixed before publication.
>>
>> Comments:
>>
>> Minor:
>> ======
>>
>> * IANA considerations
(Continue reading)

Miguel Garcia | 3 Feb 15:55 2007
Picon

Gen-ART review of IETF LC draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-ipsec-04.txt

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-ipsec-04.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <miguel.an.garcia <at> nokia.com>
Review Date:  2007-02-03
IETF LC End Date: 2007-02-08
IESG Telechat date: 2007-02-08

Summary: The document is ready for publication as as a Proposed Standard

Comments: I performed the Gen-ART review of version -03 of the same 
document. All the raised issues have been sufficiently addressed. No new 
issues are found.

BR,

     Miguel
--

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia           tel:+358-50-4804586
sip:miguel.garcia <at> neonsite.net
Nokia Research Center      Helsinki, Finland
Julian Reschke | 4 Feb 10:52 2007
Picon
Picon

Re: [Fwd: Gen-art last call review of draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-17.txt]


> From: Elwyn Davies <elwynd <at> dial.pipex.com>
> To: General Area Review Team <gen-art <at> ietf.org>
> Subject: Gen-art last call review of draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-17.txt
> 
> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
> reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
> _http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html_).
> 
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-17.txt
> Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
> Review Date: 30/01/2007
> IETF LC End Date: 21/01/2007
> IESG Telechat date: (if known) -
> 
> Summary: Apologies for the late review - I missed the aassignment somehow.

Hi Elwyn. No need to apologize. Feedback is always good, even late.

> This document is almost ready for the IESG.  There are a couple of
> issues which need a little clarification IMO and the IANA considerations
> are suffering from 'a standard problem' - RFC 2518 defined most of
> things claimed to be needing registration as a result of this document
> so they are not actually new, but RFC 2518 didn't actually have explicit
> IANA considerations.  Consequently the IANA considerations need to be
> rephrased to clarify that these are updated definitions rather than
> new.  There are also some minor editorial nits that could get fixed
(Continue reading)

Elwyn Davies | 4 Feb 12:32 2007

Re: [Fwd: Gen-art last call review of draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-17.txt]

Hi.

No problems with most of this.  Deleted the stuff with agreed actions.

A couple of responses in line to clarify my points...

/Elwyn

Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>> s21 IANA Considerations:
>> The various items here do not require  new registrations as they were
>> all registered as a result of RFC 2518 (and RFC 4229). This document
>
> We've been told that we should update the registrations. See
> <http://ietf.osafoundation.org:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86>).
Right.  Just make it clear they are updates rather than original 
definitions - I think I said this rather better in the summary.
>
>> updates the registrations (and in a sense formalizes them since RFC 2518
>> did not have an IANA Considerations section explicitly). s21.1 should
>> refer to RFC 4395 which controls the URI Scheme registry. s21.3 should
>> refer to RFC 4229 which formalized the initial state of the message
>> header field registrations.  It occurs to me that I did not check if
>> there are any message headers which were in RFC 2518 but are now dropped
>> - if so this should probably be recorded here.
>
> Adding the two references is simple (opened: 
> <http://ietf.osafoundation.org:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=264>).
>
(Continue reading)

Alexey Melnikov | 5 Feb 15:23 2007

Re: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-sieve-3028bis-09.txt

Sharon Chisholm wrote:

>I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer
>for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
>http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). 
>
>Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
>you may receive. 
>
>Document: draft-ietf-sieve-3028bis-09.txt
>
>Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits
>that should be fixed before publication. 
>
Hi Sharon,
Thanks again for your comments, I think they improved readability of the 
document!

Philip just published draft-ietf-sieve-3028bis-10.txt, which I believe 
addressed all important comments.
This is just to followup on your message in case Philip didn't do that 
already.

>Comments
>--------
>
>Note that since this was a bis, I mostly avoided comments that would
>have led to massive rewrites of existing text.
>
>1. In section 1, third paragraph, replace "MTA" with Mail Transfer Agent
(Continue reading)

Julian Reschke | 5 Feb 13:16 2007
Picon
Picon

Re: [Fwd: Gen-art last call review of draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-17.txt]

Elwyn Davies schrieb:
> Hi.
> 
> No problems with most of this.  Deleted the stuff with agreed actions.
> 
> A couple of responses in line to clarify my points...
> 
> /Elwyn
> 
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>>
>>> s21 IANA Considerations:
>>> The various items here do not require  new registrations as they were
>>> all registered as a result of RFC 2518 (and RFC 4229). This document
>>
>> We've been told that we should update the registrations. See
>> <http://ietf.osafoundation.org:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86>).
> Right.  Just make it clear they are updates rather than original 
> definitions - I think I said this rather better in the summary.

Ok, will do (meaning: I agree with this point of view and will make 
changes accordingly in "my" draft, which is *not* the WG draft).

>>> s6.1, item 4: This is the first appearance of the 'depth' concept and it
>>> isn't defined previously.  I think something could be usefully added to
>>> the terminology section to introduce depth, and specially infinite 
>>> depth.
>>
>> You mean to Section 1? That may be non-trivial, because it requires 
>> the collection definition.
(Continue reading)


Gmane