Peter Yee | 2 Oct 03:22 2014

Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis-05

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-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis-05
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review Date: September-30-2014
IETF LC End Date: September-29-2014
IESG Telechat date: TBD

Apologies for the late review -- I've been on vacation and didn't quite get
everything keyed in before the deadline.  I hope you still find the review
useful.

Summary: This draft is ready with issues for publication as an Informational
RFC. [Ready with issues]

This draft discusses some of the issues that may occur when a mobile device
roams on a visited network and attempts to use IPv6.  The technical meat of
the draft is fine, but the language usage makes it difficult to read through
without extra effort and reflection.  I'm not a 3GPP expert by any stretch
of the imagination, so I can't tell if the analysis made is sufficiently
comprehensive, but it appears to cover all of the IPv4/IPv6 combinations and
home/local breakout uses cases.

Minor issues: 

(Continue reading)

Alexey Melnikov | 1 Oct 20:18 2014

review of draft-ietf-avtcore-aria-srtp-07.txt

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-avtcore-aria-srtp-07.txt
Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov
Review Date: 1 October 2014
IETF LC End Date: 11 September 2014
IESG Telechat date: N/A

Summary: Ready with nits

Major issues: none

Minor issues: I would like to understand how a document registering ARIA 
ciphers can have an Informative (and not a Normative) reference to the 
ARIA specification.

Nits/editorial comments: none
Alexey Melnikov | 1 Oct 20:09 2014

review of draft-ietf-geopriv-uncertainty-03.txt

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-geopriv-uncertainty-03.txt
Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov
Review Date: 1 October 2014
IETF LC End Date: 7 October 2014
IESG Telechat date: N/A

Summary: Ready

Major issues: none

Minor issues: none

Nits/editorial comments: none

(I didn't check the math, but it looked plausible.)
Francis Dupont | 1 Oct 15:34 2014
Picon

review of draft-ietf-forces-packet-parallelization-02.txt

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-forces-packet-parallelization-02.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20140930
IETF LC End Date: 20140929
IESG Telechat date: 20141002

Summary: Ready with nits

Major issues: none

Minor issues: none

Nits/editorial comments:
 - Abstract page 1: the FE abbrev should be introduced (in particular
  one can believe it means ForCES Element in place of Forwarding Element)

 - ToC page 2 and 6 page 23: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments

 - 1 page 3: the ForCES abbrev must be introduced again (the Abstract
  is not a part of the document for this)

 - 1 page 3: same for LFB
(Continue reading)

Suresh Krishnan | 1 Oct 03:55 2014
Picon

Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption-33.txt

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer
for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before
posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-jose-json-web-encryption-33.txt
Reviewer: Suresh Krishnan
Review Date: 2014/09/30
IESG Telechat date: 2014/10/02

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.

Thanks
Suresh
Scott Brim | 29 Sep 23:08 2014
Picon

gen-art telechat review of draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key-33

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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before
posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key-33
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 2014-09-28
IETF LC End Date: 2014-09-03
IESG Telechat date: 2014-10-02

Summary: ready with possible minor issues

Major issues:

Minor issues:

  More than once it is said that members that are not understood
  should or must be ignored. Wouldn't this depend on context? Couldn't
  there be uses of the data structure where a negative reply would be
  needed if something is not understood, so the sender can adapt?

  In Section 4.3, you give the general principle that multiple
  unrelated key operations shouldn't be specified for a key, and give
  an example. Since this is a security issue of unknown magnitude (the
  future isn't here yet), what do you think of removing uncertainty by
  being more exhaustive in the principles and/or examples?

(Continue reading)

Scott Brim | 29 Sep 23:05 2014
Picon

gen-art telechat review of draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key-33

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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before
posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key-33
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 2014-09-28
IETF LC End Date: 2014-09-03
IESG Telechat date: 2014-10-02

Summary: ready with possible minor issues

Major issues:

Minor issues:

  More than once it is said that members that are not understood
  should or must be ignored. Wouldn't this depend on context? Couldn't
  there be uses of the data structure where a negative reply would be
  needed if something is not understood, so the sender can adapt?

  In Section 4.3, you give the general principle that multiple
  unrelated key operations shouldn't be specified for a key, and give
  an example. Since this is a security issue of unknown magnitude (the
  future isn't here yet), what do you think of removing uncertainty by
  being more exhaustive in the principles and/or examples?

(Continue reading)

Scott Brim | 29 Sep 19:33 2014
Picon

GEN-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-eppext-reg-08

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 wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-eppext-reg-08
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 2014-09-28
IETF LC End Date:
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a standards track RFC

Nits/editorial comments: My only question was about the issue of
permissiveness of registration, given the importance of this registry.
However, I assume you have already thoroughly discussed it well.

Scott
Robert Sparks | 29 Sep 10:04 2014

Genart LC review: draft-ietf-6man-why64-05


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-6man-why64-05
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 29-Sep-2014
IETF LC End Date: 30-Sep-2014
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: Ready for publication as an Informational RFC
Brian E Carpenter | 29 Sep 03:00 2014
Picon

Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-08

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-softwire-map-dhcp-08.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2014-10-29
IETF LC End Date: 2014-10-10
IESG Telechat date:

Summary:  On the right track
--------

Major Issues:
-------------

[I-D.ietf-softwire-map], [I-D.ietf-softwire-map-t] and [I-D.ietf-softwire-lw4over6]
are listed as Informative references. I find it hard to see how an implementer can
implement the DHCPv6 options without consulting those documents, so IMHO they
need to be Normative references.

For example, in section 4.5 we find

>  See [I-D.ietf-softwire-map], Section 5.1 for a description of MAP
>  algorithm, explaining all of the parameters in detail.

I have the same concern for [I-D.ietf-softwire-unified-cpe] when I see
(Continue reading)

A. Jean Mahoney | 27 Sep 20:35 2014

A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 2014-09-27

Hi all,

The following reviewers have assignments:

Reviewer          LC end       Draft
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Brian Carpenter   2014-10-10   draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-08

Christer Holmberg 2014-10-10   draft-ietf-softwire-4rd-08

Dan Romascanu     2014-10-10   draft-ietf-softwire-map-t-05

David Black       2014-10-10   draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-10

Francis Dupont    2014-10-10   draft-ietf-softwire-map-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

(Continue reading)


Gmane