headers
S Moonesamy | 21 May 2013 07:55
Favicon

Re: [spfbis] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14

Hi Meral,

Thanks for the detailed review.  I am forwarding the 
response.  Please let me know if the Gen-ART review has not been addressed.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd)

> > At 08:53 29-04-2013, Meral Shirazipour wrote:
> > >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>http://w 
> iki.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.
> > >
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Christer Holmberg | 20 May 2013 10:22
Picon
Favicon

Genart review of draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt-10.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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt-10.txt
Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
Review Date: 20 May 2013
IETF LC End Date: 15 May 20, 2013
IESG Telechat date: N/A

Summary: The draft is ready for publication, with a couple of minor editorial comments.

Major issues: -

Minor issues: -

Nits/editorial comments:

Q1_GENERAL:

The document is inconsistent when referencing other RFCs. It uses either "RFC XXXX [RFCXXXX]", "RFC XXXX"
or "[RFCXXXX]". I would suggest to use consistent way of referencing other RFCs.

Q2_2:

In section 2, you use "our" and "we" terminology, which could be a little confusing. If you are e.g. talking
about the context/scope of the draft, I think you should use "this document", or something. If you talk
about some background work/studies that has been done, maybe you could talk about "the authors", or something.

Or, have I misunderstood something?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Christer Holmberg | 20 May 2013 10:06
Picon
Favicon

Genart review of draft-ietf-tcpm-experimental-options-05.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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-tcpm-experimental-options-05.txt
Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
Review Date: 20 May 2013
IETF LC End Date: 13 December 2012
IESG Telechat date: 16 May 2013

Summary: The draft is ready for publication, without any comments.

Major issues: -

Minor issues: -

Nits/editorial comments: -

Regards,

Christer
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Weiming Wang | 17 May 2013 05:43
Picon

***SPAM*** 5.457 (5) Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-forces-interop-07

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" <ben <at> nostrum.com>

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-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
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
A. Jean Mahoney | 16 May 2013 23:52
Favicon

A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 2013-05-17

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
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Ben Campbell | 13 May 2013 21:28
Favicon

Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-forces-interop-07

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-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:

-- The draft mentions a couple of instances of tests that failed because of an incorrect implementation or
differing encapsulation formats. Does this suggest that the specifications should be clarified? In
particular, in the case of encapsulation format mismatch, should the specs include stronger
requirements to be able to receive all encapsulation formats? Or should the number of options be reduced?

-- I have a mild concern that the use of origin country names for each implementation could confuse readers
into thinking that the countries themselves officially participated, rather than organizations from
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Tim Chown | 13 May 2013 19:36
Picon
Favicon

Re: Gen-art telechat review: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-06.txt (updated for -07)

Yes, thanks all - I think we're nearly there…

Tim

On 13 May 2013, at 02:58, Liubing (Leo) <leo.liubing <at> huawei.com> wrote:

> Hi, Robert
> 
> Your careful review and comments really helped improving the document a lot.
> Many thanks to you.
> 
> All the best,
> Bing
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjsparks <at> nostrum.com]
>> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 11:13 PM
>> To: Liubing (Leo)
>> Cc: renum <at> ietf.org; draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis <at> tools.ietf.org;
>> gen-art <at> ietf.org; ietf <at> ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: Gen-art telechat review: draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-06.txt
>> (updated for -07)
>> 
>> Thanks Bing -
>> 
>> The updates make the document better, and I appreciate the resolution of
>> referencing Tim's expired draft.
>> I think you've addressed all my comments except for the one on section
>> 5.1, but that's ok.
>>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Romascanu, Dan (Dan | 13 May 2013 12:30
Favicon

Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-dh-checks-04


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-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 reference the IANA actions could not be completed. On the other hand making
[I-D.merkle-ikev2-ke-brainpool] Normative Reference would create a downref because the later is
informational. I believe this is OK, because I see the document in RFC Editor Queue waiting for IANA
actions, which may actually be exactly the ones described in this I-D, but a cleaner solution would have
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
A. Jean Mahoney | 9 May 2013 23:23
Favicon

A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 2013-05-09

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

<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Elwyn Davies | 9 May 2013 00:35

Gen-art additional review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc3530bis-25


I am another 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-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: I am disappointed that it doesn't try to handle versioning file 
systems like the venerable VAX filing system! ;-) ] There are some areas 
where the addition of named attributes hasn't really been properly dealt 
with AFAICS. One major area that I felt ought to have been better 
addressed in the -bis was internationalisation.  As mentioned below, I
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Suresh Krishnan | 8 May 2013 06:03
Picon
Favicon

Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-geopriv-held-measurements-07

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for
draft-ietf-geopriv-held-measurements-07

For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.

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
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |

Gmane