Diego Caviglia | 2 Feb 09:31 2009
Picon

Re: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt

Hi Gonzalo,
           I'd like to thank you for your work here.

BR

Diego

__________________________________________

Diego Caviglia

Strategic Product Manager

Broadband Networks, PL Broadband Optical Network 

Ericsson Telecomunicazioni S.p.A. (TEI)

Via A. Negrone 1/A                                 Office:  +39 010 600 3736

16153, Genova, Italy                               Fax: +39 010 600 3577

Block E Level 4                                        Mobile: +39 335 7181762

www.ericsson.com                  diego,caviglia <at> ericsson.com

This communication is confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s). Any unauthorized review,
use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you believe this message has been sent to you in error,
please notify the sender by replying to this transmission and delete the message without disclosing it.
Thank you.

(Continue reading)

Brian E Carpenter | 2 Feb 23:42 2009
Picon

Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency-05.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-mmusic-decoding-dependency-05.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2008-02-03
IETF LC End Date: 2009-02-09
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: Almost ready.
--------

Comments:
---------

This draft defines a retro-fit to SDP to allow for the progression from
simple layered encoding to more complex mechanisms, where different components 
of the endcoded stream depend on each other in a directed graph. The simple 
layered hierarchy could be directly deduced whereas more complex dependencies 
need to be signaled. The Motivation section does a pretty good job of explaining
this and the draft as a whole is clear and well written.

I have not checked the examples in detail.

(Continue reading)

Thomas Schierl | 4 Feb 11:16 2009
Picon

[Fwd: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency-05.txt]


Picon Picon
From: Thomas Schierl <schierl <at> hhi.fhg.de>
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency-05.txt
Date: 2009-02-04 09:24:51 GMT
Dear Brian, all,

Brian, thanks a lot for carrying out the review!

Here are our replies:

1. We do not think that it is required for the offerer to find out, why 
the offer has been rejected. At least we do not know any context where 
the reason for rejecting an offer is indicated.

2. "Aforementioned" can be removed in RFC editor processing (AUTH48), or 
IESG note.

3. DDP and RDMA in the RFC4296 sense are about as far away technically 
than it gets from SDP signaling.  Confusion is, in our opinion, 
unlikely.  Can we ask the MMUSIC chairs and Cullen for guidance here?

Best regards,
(Continue reading)

Thomas Schierl | 4 Feb 10:24 2009
Picon
Picon

Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency-05.txt

Dear Brian, all,

Brian, thanks a lot for carrying out the review!

Here are our replies:

1. We do not think that it is required for the offerer to find out, why 
the offer has been rejected. At least we do not know any context where 
the reason for rejecting an offer is indicated.

2. "Aforementioned" can be removed in RFC editor processing (AUTH48), or 
IESG note.

3. DDP and RDMA in the RFC4296 sense are about as far away technically 
than it gets from SDP signaling.  Confusion is, in our opinion, 
unlikely.  Can we ask the MMUSIC chairs and Cullen for guidance here?

Best regards,
Thomas

--

-- 
Thomas Schierl
--------------
Fraunhofer HHI

----
Visit us at

GSM mobile WORLD CONGRESS / Barcelona, Spain / 16-19 February 2009 / Hall 1 Booth 1G49
http://www.mobileworldcongress.com
(Continue reading)

Brian E Carpenter | 4 Feb 21:37 2009
Picon

Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency-05.txt

Hi Thomas,

On 2009-02-04 22:24, Thomas Schierl wrote:
> Dear Brian, all,
> 
> Brian, thanks a lot for carrying out the review!
> 
> Here are our replies:
> 
> 1. We do not think that it is required for the offerer to find out, why
> the offer has been rejected. At least we do not know any context where
> the reason for rejecting an offer is indicated.

Maybe I should be more precise about my question. You say that when the
sender receives:

>> (2) with a refusal to the request (e.g., 488
>>    Not acceptable here or 606 Not acceptable in SIP).

then

>>   In the
>>   second case, if the sender of the offer still wishes to establish the
>>   session, it SHOULD re-try the request with an offer including only a
>>   single media stream.

I don't understand  how the sender decides that it is in this case
rather than any other reason for receiving a Not acceptable reponse.
Is it supposed to *guess* that the reason is the use of DDP? I don't
know what IF statement I would need, if I was writing code for the sender.
(Continue reading)

Thomas Schierl | 5 Feb 14:14 2009
Picon
Picon

Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency-05.txt

Hi Brian,

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> On 2009-02-04 22:24, Thomas Schierl wrote:
>   
>> Dear Brian, all,
>>
>> Brian, thanks a lot for carrying out the review!
>>
>> Here are our replies:
>>
>> 1. We do not think that it is required for the offerer to find out, why
>> the offer has been rejected. At least we do not know any context where
>> the reason for rejecting an offer is indicated.
>>     
>
> Maybe I should be more precise about my question. You say that when the
> sender receives:
>
>   
>>> (2) with a refusal to the request (e.g., 488
>>>    Not acceptable here or 606 Not acceptable in SIP).
>>>       
>
> then
>
>   
>>>   In the
(Continue reading)

Brian E Carpenter | 5 Feb 20:20 2009
Picon

Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mmusic-decoding-dependency-05.txt

Thomas,

On 2009-02-06 02:14, Thomas Schierl wrote:
> Hi Brian,
> 
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Hi Thomas,
>>
>> On 2009-02-04 22:24, Thomas Schierl wrote:
>>  
>>> Dear Brian, all,
>>>
>>> Brian, thanks a lot for carrying out the review!
>>>
>>> Here are our replies:
>>>
>>> 1. We do not think that it is required for the offerer to find out, why
>>> the offer has been rejected. At least we do not know any context where
>>> the reason for rejecting an offer is indicated.
>>>     
>>
>> Maybe I should be more precise about my question. You say that when the
>> sender receives:
>>
>>  
>>>> (2) with a refusal to the request (e.g., 488
>>>>    Not acceptable here or 606 Not acceptable in SIP).
>>>>       
>>
>> then
(Continue reading)

Robert Sparks | 5 Feb 23:49 2009

Genart IETF LC review of draft-ietf-rserpool-mib-10.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-rserpool-mib-10.txt
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 5Feb09
IETF LC End Date: 6Feb09
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Basically ready, but with nits that need to be addressed

Caveat: I am not a MIB expert.

Bert Wijnen points to several improvements at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg55179.html

If possible, please also increase the level of detail in the IANA  
considerations section
Mary Barnes | 6 Feb 03:41 2009

A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 05 Feb 2009

Hi all,
 
Here's the link to the new LC assignments for this week:
http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-090205-lc.html

The assignments are captured in the spreadsheets:
http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/gen-art.html
http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/gen-art-by-reviewer.html

The standard template is included below.
Thanks,
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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document:
Reviewer:
Review Date:
IETF LC End Date:
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary:

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:







_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
Mary Barnes | 6 Feb 03:43 2009

Assignments for 12 February 2009

Hi all,

Here's the link to the summary of assignments for the Feb 12, 2009 telechat:
http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-090212.html

With the updated spreadsheets:
http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/gen-art.html
http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/gen-art-by-reviewer.html

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

Note that reviews should ideally be posted to the gen-art mailing list by COB on Tuesday:
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/review-guidelines.html


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: 12 February 2009

Summary:

Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:






_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Gmane