Subject: [Mipshop] AD review of the rfc5268bis document

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 11:47:56 +0300

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

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 09:10:56 -0700

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:

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

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:15:22 +0300

Yes, I know and the document says so, so does my IESG ballot writeup...

Jari