Subject: [Gen-art] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 2013-10-17

From: "A. Jean Mahoney" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 16:29:42 -0500

Hi all,

The following reviewers have assignments:

Reviewer          LC end       Draft
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Christer Holmberg 2013-10-24   draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-05

Dan Romascanu     2013-10-25   draft-ietf-ipfix-mediation-protocol-07

David Black       2013-10-29   draft-ietf-appsawg-malformed-mail-09

Elwyn Davies      2013-10-25   draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc2326bis-38 *
Robert Sparks

Francis Dupont    2013-11-06   draft-ietf-forces-ceha-08

Joel Halpern      2013-11-06   draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-multi-topology-09

Kathleen Moriarty 2013-11-06   draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-08

Martin Thomson    2013-10-31   draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-10

* 2nd Last Call

I have made the assignments in the review tool:
http://art.tools.ietf.org/tools/art/genart/

And the assignments are captured in the spreadsheets:
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/dav/genart/gen-art.html
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/dav/genart/gen-art-by-reviewer.html

The standard template is included below.

Thanks,

Jean

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

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

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:

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 05:30:48 -0400

Document: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-multi-topology-09.txt
     LDP Extensions for Multi Topology Routing
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: 18-October-2013
IETF LC End Date: 6-November-2013
IESG Telechat date: N/A

Summary: This document is nearly ready for publication as a Proposed 
Standard RFC.  I believe there is one major issue that is easily addressed.

Major issues:
     I may have simply missed this reviewing the document, but as far as 
I can tell there is no specification of the relationship between the 
MT-IDs in this document and the MT-IDs used elsewhere.  Yes, I can take 
a guess at the intent.  But is it stated somewhere that these are the 
same IDs negotiated in the relevant IGP?  Or is there some other intent?

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:
     I find it odd that the MT-ID follows the IP prefix in the various 
formats.  Yes, the computer can parse both.  But since we tend to think 
in Network byte order, I expect more significant information (MT-ID) to 
occur before less significant information (IP prefix within topology.)

---

From: "A. Jean Mahoney" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 12:56:01 -0500

Hi all,

Change in assignments - Meral will be reviewing draft-ietf-ipfix-mediation-protocol.

Thanks,

Jean

On 10/17/13 4:29 PM, A. Jean Mahoney wrote:

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