AD review of the rfc5268bis document

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

AD review of the rfc5268bis document

Jari Arkko-2
I have reviewed this specification and found no issues -- good work! It
has been sent to IETF Last Call.

There were one or two missing "the" words and commas here and there --
perhaps due to missing some fixes done to RFC 5268 by the RFC Editor, or
because they were mistakes that you on purpose corrected. Here's the
diff. In case you need to revise the document for some reason you could
take a look at these as well.

http://www.arkko.com/ietf/mipshop/draft-ietf-mipshop-rfc5268bis-01-from-rfc5268.diff.html

Jari

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AD review of the rfc5268bis document

Devarapalli, Vijay
Hi Jari,

It might be a good idea to mention that the only change in the document is
modifying the message formats for the HI and HACK messages. There was no
changes to the rest of the protocol (and the rest of the document).

Vijay


On 4/13/09 1:47 AM, "Jari Arkko" wrote:

> I have reviewed this specification and found no issues -- good work! It
> has been sent to IETF Last Call.
>
> There were one or two missing "the" words and commas here and there --
> perhaps due to missing some fixes done to RFC 5268 by the RFC Editor, or
> because they were mistakes that you on purpose corrected. Here's the
> diff. In case you need to revise the document for some reason you could
> take a look at these as well.
>
> http://www.arkko.com/ietf/mipshop/draft-ietf-mipshop-rfc5268bis-01-from-rfc526
> 8.diff.html
>
> Jari
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mipshop mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AD review of the rfc5268bis document

Jari Arkko-2
Yes, I know and the document says so, so does my IESG ballot writeup...

Jari

Vijay Devarapalli wrote:

> Hi Jari,
>
> It might be a good idea to mention that the only change in the document is
> modifying the message formats for the HI and HACK messages. There was no
> changes to the rest of the protocol (and the rest of the document).
>
> Vijay
>
>
> On 4/13/09 1:47 AM, "Jari Arkko" wrote:
>
>  
>> I have reviewed this specification and found no issues -- good work! It
>> has been sent to IETF Last Call.
>>
>> There were one or two missing "the" words and commas here and there --
>> perhaps due to missing some fixes done to RFC 5268 by the RFC Editor, or
>> because they were mistakes that you on purpose corrected. Here's the
>> diff. In case you need to revise the document for some reason you could
>> take a look at these as well.
>>
>> http://www.arkko.com/ietf/mipshop/draft-ietf-mipshop-rfc5268bis-01-from-rfc526
>> 8.diff.html
>>
>> Jari
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mipshop mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
>>    
>
>
>
>  

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop