General Area Review Team

Diego Caviglia | 2 Feb 2009 09:31

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)

headers

Brian E Carpenter | 2 Feb 2009 23:42

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)

headers

Thomas Schierl | 4 Feb 2009 11:16

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

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)

headers

Thomas Schierl | 4 Feb 2009 10:24

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)

headers

Brian E Carpenter | 4 Feb 2009 21:37

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)

headers

Thomas Schierl | 5 Feb 2009 14:14

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)

headers

Brian E Carpenter | 5 Feb 2009 20:20

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)

headers

Robert Sparks | 5 Feb 2009 23:49

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

headers

Mary Barnes | 6 Feb 2009 03:41

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

headers

Mary Barnes | 6 Feb 2009 03:43

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

58	May 2013
147	April 2013
92	March 2013
107	February 2013
85	January 2013
72	December 2012
62	November 2012
79	October 2012
60	September 2012
73	August 2012
62	July 2012
90	June 2012
63	May 2012
87	April 2012
61	March 2012
92	February 2012
130	January 2012
50	December 2011
80	November 2011
97	October 2011
89	September 2011
77	August 2011
85	July 2011
126	June 2011
59	May 2011
85	April 2011
77	March 2011
94	February 2011
101	January 2011
127	December 2010
53	November 2010
61	October 2010
62	September 2010
68	August 2010
49	July 2010
89	June 2010
76	May 2010
85	April 2010
117	March 2010
74	February 2010
96	January 2010
106	December 2009
74	November 2009
128	October 2009
108	September 2009
131	August 2009
81	July 2009
122	June 2009
94	May 2009
118	April 2009
51	March 2009
59	February 2009
79	January 2009
145	December 2008
123	November 2008
98	October 2008
92	September 2008
58	August 2008
67	July 2008
108	June 2008
105	May 2008
97	April 2008
122	March 2008
95	February 2008
72	January 2008
49	December 2007
115	November 2007
117	October 2007
73	September 2007
66	August 2007
47	July 2007
102	June 2007
72	May 2007
44	April 2007
69	March 2007
106	February 2007
92	January 2007
62	December 2006
116	November 2006
89	October 2006
98	September 2006
115	August 2006
69	July 2006
121	June 2006
99	May 2006
68	April 2006
67	March 2006
127	February 2006
120	January 2006
133	December 2005
115	November 2005
28	October 2005

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun

						1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Genart IETF LC review of draft-ietf-rserpool-mib-10.txt

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

Assignments for 12 February 2009

A new batch of IETF LC reviews - 05 Feb 2009