http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.gen-art hourly 1 1901-01-01T00:00+00:00 http://gmane.org/img/gmane-25t.png http://gmane.org http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.gen-art/8418 <pre>Hi Ben, Thank you very much for the review comments. Please see inline responses from authors of the document on the comments. Hi Sherpherd and AD, we will update a version very soon. thanks a lot. Weiming ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Campbell" &lt;ben&lt; at &gt;nostrum.com&gt; I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at &lt;http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq&gt;. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-forces-interop-07 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2013-05-13 IETF LC End Date: 2013-05-13 IESG Telechat date: Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an informational RFC. I have a few minor questions and editorial comments that may be worth considering prior to publication. *** Major issues: None. *** Minor issues: </pre> Weiming Wang 2013-05-17T03:43:05 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.gen-art/8416 <pre>Hi all, The following reviewers have assignments: Reviewer LC end Draft --------------------------------------------------------------------- Elwyn Davies 2013-05-24 draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-09 * Francis Dupont 2013-05-27 draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-dod-08 Joel Halpern 2013-05-29 draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-10 Martin Thomson 2013-05-30 draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-radius-opt-11 * * On the 5/30 telechat 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 &lt;http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq&gt;. Please resolve these comments</pre> A. Jean Mahoney 2013-05-16T21:52:10 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.gen-art/8406 <pre>I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at &lt;http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq&gt;. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-forces-interop-07 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2013-05-13 IETF LC End Date: 2013-05-13 IESG Telechat date: Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an informational RFC. I have a few minor questions and editorial comments that may be worth considering prior to publication. *** Major issues: None. *** Minor issues: </pre> Ben Campbell 2013-05-13T19:28:04 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.gen-art/8394 <pre> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at &lt;http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq&gt;. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-ipsecme-dh-checks-04 Reviewer: Dan Romascanu Review Date: 5/13/13 IETF LC End Date: 5/20/13 IESG Telechat date: Summary: This document is Ready. It is clearly written and easy to follow, even for a non-expert in security. I appreciated the sections that describe the transition to implementations that support the update and the ones that describe behavior upon test failures - which are of value to implementers and operators. One minor issue related to the IANA registry may be only an issue of clarification. Major issues: Minor issues: The IANA Considerations Sections mention that Groups 27-30 have been recently defined in [I-D.merkle-ikev2-ke-brainpool]. This is an Informational Reference which is somehow odd, because without this refer</pre> Romascanu, Dan (Dan 2013-05-13T10:30:40 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.gen-art/8386 <pre>Hi all, The following reviewers have assignments: Reviewer LC end Draft --------------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Romascanu 2013-05-20 draft-ietf-ipsecme-dh-checks-04 David Black 2013-06-04 draft-eastlake-rfc5342bis-02 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 &lt;http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq&gt;. 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 </pre> A. Jean Mahoney 2013-05-09T21:23:57 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.gen-art/8383 <pre> I am another Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at &lt;http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq&gt;. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-25 Reviewer: Elwyn Davies Review Date: 8 May 2013 IETF LC End Date: - IESG Telechat date: 30 May 2013 Summary: This is a mammoth document. The comments run to 650 lines. Clearly there ae issues in modifying a -bis document given that it has to be pretty much compatible with its progenitor - but that is now going on 14 years old. I believe that there are a significant number of minor issues to address and parts of the document (despite the overall size) need to provide a bit more explanation of what is going on. In particular I think that a little bit more rationale over the way in which an NFS server attempts to provide something like a common interface to the two big player filesystem types (*ix and Windows) [Aside:</pre> Elwyn Davies 2013-05-08T22:35:21 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.gen-art/8379 <pre>I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for draft-ietf-geopriv-held-measurements-07 For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at &lt;http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html&gt;. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a Proposed Standard, but I have a few minor comments that you may wish to address. * Section 5.2 - The Interface-Id option is the DHCPv6 equivalent of the circuit identifier defined in RFC3046. Please add a reference to Section 22.18 of RFC3315 that describes this option. - Is there any specific reason that the giaddr is being specified using the IPv4-mapped IPv6 address format? From my reading giaddr is of type bt:ipAddressType and it allows specification of both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses natively. * Section 8.3 Page 44 IPv4-compatible addresses have been deprecated in the IPv6 addressing architecture (RFC4291) and need not be supported here. * Section 8.7 Page 53 I think there</pre> Suresh Krishnan 2013-05-08T04:03:20 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.gen-art/8374 <pre>I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at &lt;http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq&gt; Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-09 Reviewer: Peter Yee Review Date: May-03-2013 IETF LC End Date: May-03-2013 IESG Telechat date: May-16-2013 Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication as a Standards Track RFC, but has nits that should be fixed before publication. [Ready with nits] The abstract says it pretty well: This document defines a YANG data model for management of IP implementations. Major issues: Minor issues: Nits: Page 7, bottom: The code copyright date says 2012. Update it to 2013. Page 10, in leaf phys-address, the description has an incorrect spelling of "neighbor". General: where a description of phys-address is given, in both cases it says "The physical level address...". It might be more correct to state "The link layer addr</pre> Peter Yee 2013-05-04T06:26:07 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.gen-art/8371 <pre>I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at &lt;http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq&gt; Document: draft-ietf-6man-impatient-nud-06 Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov Review Date: 03 May 2013 IETF LC End Date: 9 May 2013 IETF Telechat Date: unknown Summary: This draft is ready for publication as Proposed Standard - Major Issues:None - Minor Issues:None - Nits: None _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art&lt; at &gt;ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art </pre> Alexey Melnikov 2013-05-03T14:08:55 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.gen-art/8370 <pre>I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at &lt;http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq&gt; Document: draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-mib-07 Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov Review Date: 03 May 2013 IETF LC End Date: 23 April 2013 IETF Telechat Date: 16 May 2013 Summary: This draft is ready for publication as Proposed Standard (with nits) - Major Issues: None - Minor Issues: In multiple places: This object is persistent and when written the entity SHOULD save the change to non-volatile storage." Why is this a SHOULD? I.e., is there a good reason not to save such values (other than crashing while doing that, which I think is not something you can prevent anyway.) It really looks like MUST is actually appropriate here. olsrv2FHoldTime OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Unsigned32 UNITS "milliseconds" MAX-ACCESS read-write STATUS current DESCRIPTION "olsrv2FHol</pre> Alexey Melnikov 2013-05-03T13:39:15 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.gen-art/8369 <pre>Hi all, The following reviewers have assignments: Reviewer LC end Draft ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Alexey Melnikov 2013-04-23 draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-mib-07 Dan Romascanu 2013-02-24 draft-cardenas-dff-12 * Dan Romascanu 2013-03-27 draft-ietf-core-coap-16 * Joel Halpern 2013-04-01 draft-ietf-ipfix-flow-selection-tech-16 * Joel Halpern 2013-05-01 draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-01 ** Peter Yee 2013-05-03 draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-09 Roni Even 2013-04-12 draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-implications-on-ipv4-nets-03 * Roni Even 2013-05-03 draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-10 ** Robert Sparks 2013-04-10 draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-06 ** Robert Sparks 2013-05-06 draft-ietf-dhc-triggered-reconfigure-05 ** Vijay Gurbani 2013-04-18 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ring-protection-06 * Wassim Haddad 2013-05-08 draft-ietf-trill-fine-labeli</pre> A. Jean Mahoney 2013-05-02T22:28:42 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.gen-art/8368 <pre>Hi all, The following reviewers have assignments: Reviewer LC end Draft --------------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Campbell 2013-05-13 draft-ietf-forces-interop-07 Christer Holmberg 2013-05-15 draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt-10 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 &lt;http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq&gt;. 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: Maj</pre> A. Jean Mahoney 2013-05-02T22:28:32 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.gen-art/8366 <pre>I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at &lt;http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq&gt; Document: draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch-06 Reviewer: Wassim Haddad Review Date: 01 May 2013 IETF LC End Date: 07 May 2013 IETF Telechat Date: unknown Summary: This draft is ready for publication as informational RFC - Major Issues: None - Minor Issues: None Regards, Wassim H. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art&lt; at &gt;ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art </pre> Wassim Haddad 2013-05-01T16:26:03 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.gen-art/8354 <pre>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: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour Review Date: 2013-04-29 IETF LC End Date: 2013-04-30 IESG Telechat date: NA Summary: This draft is almost ready to be published as Informational RFC but I do have some comments. Nits/editorial comments: -[Page 6] Section "1.1.2. Imported Definitions" Please consider expanding acronyms and giving the section of the RFC where each term is defined. (Also throughout the document it would greatly help the readability if acronyms are expanded when first used.) -[Page 8] Section 2.2. Line 1: ""MAIL FROM" -&gt; extra \" -[Page 13], Section 3.3. , first line: "sections 3.3.14 and 3.3". If both subsection and subsubsection are to be mentioned, please consider: "sections 3.3 and 3.3.14" -[Page 16], Secti</pre> Meral Shirazipour 2013-04-29T15:53:59 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.gen-art/8353 <pre> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at &lt;http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq&gt;. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-oauth-revocation-07 Reviewer: Dan Romascanu Review Date: 4/29/13 IETF LC End Date: 4/30/13 IESG Telechat date: (if known) Summary: Almost Ready - it's a relatively simple, clear and well written document. However there is one issue related to the IANA policy for the new registry defined by this document which must be clarified before the document is approved. A couple of minor issues also need clarification and fixing. Major issues: I have found one major issue related to the Type Hint Registry policy described in Section 5.1.2. Possible values of the parameter "token_type_hint" (see Section 2.1) are registered with a Specification Required ([RFC5226]) after a two- week review period on the TBD&lt; at &gt;ietf.org mailing list, on the adv</pre> Romascanu, Dan (Dan 2013-04-29T14:39:50 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.gen-art/8343 <pre>I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at &lt;http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq&gt;. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-10 Reviewer: Roni Even Review Date:2013-4-28 IETF LC End Date: 2013-5-3 IESG Telechat date: 2013-5-16 Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as Standard track RFC. Major issues: Minor issues: 1. I had some problem understanding the "location" leaf. Section 3.2 has it as a string and says that "The device uses the location string to identify the physical or logical entity that the configuration applies to". I am not sure how you identify physical location having no definition of the mapping. I saw the examples in Appendix E and it looked more to me as logical mapping but not physical since it attaches a name to something in the device but I am not clear how you know what it is physi</pre> Roni Even 2013-04-28T08:31:05 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.gen-art/8335 <pre>I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at &lt;http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq&gt;. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-bmwg-imix-genome-04 Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani Review Date: Apr-26-2013 IETF LC End Date: May-06-2013 IESG Telechat date: May-30-2013 This document is ready as an Informational. A couple of minor comments that can benefit the draft below. Major: 0 Minor: 2 Nits: 0 Minor: - S1, 4th paragraph: "An IMIX suited for one networking device and deployment will not be appropriate for another." I suspect the variability of the packet sizes has to do with the vendor whose device is being benchmarked. In other words, a constant, K, used as a packet size by Vendor A does not mean that K can be used while benchmarking a device by Vendor B. If so, it may be helpful to augment the quoted sentence above by the phrase "because packet sizes di</pre> Vijay K. Gurbani 2013-04-26T14:38:49 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.gen-art/8328 <pre>Hi all, The following reviewers have assignments: Reviewer LC end Draft --------------------------------------------------------------------- Alexey Melnikov 2013-05-09 draft-ietf-6man-impatient-nud-06 Peter McCann 2013-05-03 draft-ietf-geopriv-relative-location-04 Peter Yee 2013-05-03 draft-ietf-netmod-ip-cfg-03 * Roni Even 2013-05-03 draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-10 * Robert Sparks 2013-05-06 draft-ietf-dhc-triggered-reconfigure-05 * Suresh Krishnan 2013-05-06 draft-ietf-geopriv-held-measurements-07 Vijay Gurbani 2013-05-06 draft-ietf-bmwg-imix-genome-04 Wassim Haddad 2013-05-08 draft-ietf-trill-fine-labeling-06 * * On the 5/16 telechat 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 inc</pre> A. Jean Mahoney 2013-04-25T22:12:17 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.gen-art/8327 <pre>I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at &lt;http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq&gt;. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-06 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2013-04-25 IETF LC End Date: 2013-04-16 Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard. There are a few minor issues which should be considered first, described in the review. Major issues: None. Minor issues: </pre> Ben Campbell 2013-04-25T20:39:54 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.gen-art/8322 <pre>Document: draft-ietf-karp-crypto-key-table-07 Reviewer: David L. Black Review Date: April 25, 2013 IETF LC End Date: April 29, 2013 Summary: This draft is on the right track, but has open issues described in the review. This draft describes a conceptual key database for use by protocols. It's definitely useful and valuable work, as key management is often an afterthought in protocol design, even when security functionality is actively worked on in the design process. The draft text is in good shape and reads cleanly, but the draft is short on precision in specifying a number of the fields for the database, and the IANA registries; most of the open issues are requests for the level of precision needed for interoperability and reuse of database implementation across different protocol implementations. Major issues: (Section 2) [1] LocalKeyName and PeerKeyName are strings. What character set? If Unicode (e.g., UTF-8?), add text on Unicode considerations (e.g., normalization). Finding a Unicode expert w</pre> Black, David 2013-04-25T15:21:36 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.gen-art/8315 <pre>I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at &lt;http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq&gt;. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-core-coap-15 Reviewer: Dan Romascanu Review Date: 3/27/2013 IETF LC End Date: 3/27/2013 IESG Telechat date: 4/25/2013 Summary: This document is almost ready. Some of the issues in my first review of the document were addressed in draft-15, or clarified by the authors in their responses. However issues #2 and #3 in the major issues list were not addressed in the revised I-D. It is up to the General Area Director and the rest of the IESG to assess whether these issues are blocking. Regards, Dan </pre> Romascanu, Dan (Dan 2013-04-24T13:05:08 Search the mailing list at Gmane query http://search.gmane.org/?group=$group=gmane.ietf.gen-art