Subject: [Gen-art] (pre)review of draft-ietf-rohc-rfc3095bis-framework-03.txt

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 18:56:23 +0100

I've not yet finished to read the document but as it is derived from
an RFC I don't expect to find any serious or technical issue, so
IMHO the summary should be "ready"...

Regards

[email-masked]

PS (for gen-art reviewvers, in particular Eric Gray): all the lists of
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/ don't agree about next jo:, review
draft-ietf-nemo-terminology-06.txt or draft-ietf-nemo-requirements-06.txt...

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 17:15:38 -0600

Francis (and Eric),

Sorry, I goofed and mis-matched your assignments in the spreadsheet with
those in the assignment file (the alphabetization of the file names
switched the ordering in the spreadsheet).  If neither of you have
reviewed either of the docs yet, then please follow the spreadsheet. 

Are there any other errors you're aware of?  If so, please let me know -
since alot of this is still manual (hopefully we'll have a tool early
next year), there is lots of room for human error in the process.

Thanks,
Mary

-----Original Message-----
From: Francis Dupont [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 11:56 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [Gen-art] (pre)review of
draft-ietf-rohc-rfc3095bis-framework-03.txt

Regards

PS (for gen-art reviewvers, in particular Eric Gray): all the lists of
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/ don't agree about next jo:,
review
draft-ietf-nemo-terminology-06.txt or
draft-ietf-nemo-requirements-06.txt...