Elwyn Davies | 3 Mar 19:18 2015
Picon

Gen-art telechat review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb-04.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-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb-04.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 2015/03/03
IETF LC End Date: 2015/02/18
IESG Telechat date: 20150305

Summary: Almost ready for PS.  I noticed at a late stage in the last 
call reviewing process that the requirement that the hop before a 
loopback node should be a strict hop was unnecessary.  The draft editor, 
Dong Jie, has agreed that this is the case and is checking that the 
removal of this constraint is acceptable to the other authors.  There is 
one other outstanding fix agreed for a nit. Otherwise all my last call 
comments have been cleared.  Thanks.

Major issues:
None

Minor issues:
s3.2, para 2, et seq:
The requirement that the hop before the loopback entity MUST be a strict 
hop is unnecessary.  The essential constraint (which is fully specified 
in the -04 draft) is that the entity at which loopback is to occur has 
to be uniquely identified (i.e., it can't be an 'abstract node' 
(Continue reading)

Suresh Krishnan | 2 Mar 18:19 2015
Picon

Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-13.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-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-13.txt
Reviewer: Suresh Krishnan
Review Date: 2015/03/02
IESG Telechat date: 2015/03/05

Summary: This draft has significant issues that needs to be fixed before 
it is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.

Major:

* Section 5.1:

This section mandates the receiver to ignore the F bit if it is set 
while running over reliable transport. In my opinion this is not 
sufficient as the length of the header is determined by the bit being 
set. I strongly believe that this is an error condition and the packet 
should not be processed further. At the bare minimum, the draft needs to 
specify if the receiver should process the COMMON-HEADER as having 12 
octets or 16 octets in this case.

* Section 6.2.3:

This section does not explicitly state that each of the fragments needs 
(Continue reading)

Suresh Krishnan | 2 Mar 10:55 2015
Picon

Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te-09.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-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te-09.txt
Reviewer: Suresh Krishnan
Review Date: 2015/03/02
IESG Telechat date: 2015/03/05

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard, but 
I do have some comments you may wish to address.

Minor:

* Section 5

Isn't separating static and dynamic info of the same TE link another 
method of scaling? (e.g. encoding the Port Label Restrictions sub-TLV 
into a separate top level link TLV and advertising in a separate LSA)
If so, suggest adding a subsection here to describe it.

* Security Considerations:

I have an uneasy (potentially unjustified) feeling about the lack of any 
specific security considerations for the Connectivity Matrix sub-TLV. It 
looks pretty compute intensive to me. Somebody should probably take a 
look at the DoS possibilities with a multiple complex decomposed 
(Continue reading)

Peter Yee | 2 Mar 05:48 2015

Gen-ART Telechat review for draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode-28

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-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode-28
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review Date: Mar-01-2015
IETF LC End Date: Feb-19-2015
IESG Telechat date: Mar-05-2015

Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication as a Standards Track
RFC [Ready].

The draft specifies the encoding of information fields necessary for WSON
switching.

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits:

I saw a few picayune nits in the document, but they're not worth pursuing at
this point.  Nice job cleaning the document up!
Black, David | 26 Feb 17:26 2015

Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bess-orf-covering-prefixes-04

The review of the -03 version also applies to the -04 version of this draft.

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Black, David
> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 8:05 PM
> To: hj2387 <at> att.com; luay.jalil <at> verizon.com; rbonica <at> juniper.net;
> keyupate <at> cisco.com; Lucy yong (lucy.yong <at> huawei.com); General Area Review Team
> (gen-art <at> ietf.org)
> Cc: ietf <at> ietf.org; bess <at> ietf.org; Black, David
> Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bess-orf-covering-prefixes-03
> 
> 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-bess-orf-covering-prefixes-03
> Reviewer: David Black
> Review Date: Feb 13, 2015
> IETF LC End Date: Feb 18, 2015
> 
> Summary: Unfortunately, I don't have the expertise to review this draft.
> 
> This draft is esoteric - it's written by BGP/MPLS VPN experts for BGP/MPLS
(Continue reading)

A. Jean Mahoney | 25 Feb 23:13 2015

Assignments for the 2015-03-05 Telechat

Hi all,

The following reviewers have assignments:

Reviewer            LC end       Draft
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexey Melnikov     2015-02-04   draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-12 *

Brian Carpenter     2015-03-02   draft-ietf-stox-chat-10 **

David Black         2015-02-18 draft-ietf-bess-orf-covering-prefixes-04 *

Dan Romascanu       2014-12-22   draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-use-07 **

Elwyn Davies        2015-02-18   draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb-03 **
Francis Dupont      2015-02-18 draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro-02 **
Francis Dupont      2015-03-02   draft-ietf-stox-im-12

Joel Halpern        2015-02-18 draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-11 **
Joel Halpern        2015-03-02   draft-ietf-stox-groupchat-10

Meral Shirazipour   2015-03-02 draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registry-02

Martin Thomson      2014-06-20   draft-iab-2870bis-02 *
Martin Thomson      2015-02-18   draft-ietf-cdni-logging-15 **

Peter Yee           2015-02-19 draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode-28 *

Roni Even           2015-02-20   draft-ietf-6tisch-tsch-05 **
Roni Even           2015-02-10   draft-ietf-netext-ani-location-08 *
(Continue reading)

A. Jean Mahoney | 25 Feb 23:02 2015

A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 2015-02-25

Hi all,

The following reviewers have assignments:

Reviewer          LC end       Draft
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Sparks     2015-03-03   draft-ietf-calext-rscale-04 *

Roni Even         2015-03-04   draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-11

Suresh Krishnan   2015-03-05   draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-13 *

Tom Taylor        2015-03-09   draft-ietf-lmap-framework-11

Vijay Gurbani     2015-03-11   draft-ietf-netconf-rfc5539bis-09

* On the 3/5 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)

Brian E Carpenter | 21 Feb 00:55 2015
Picon

Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-stox-chat-10

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-stox-chat-10.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2015-02-21
IETF LC End Date: 2015-03-02
IESG Telechat date: 2015-03-05

Summary: Ready
--------

Comment:
--------

This is a well-written document, even for one who knows nothing
of XMPP or MSRP details. It strongly reminds me of the days when
we had to build file transfer protocol gateways between FTP,
FTAM and various proprietary protocols - the main problem was
mapping non-congruent state machines into one another. The current
draft has an amusing example: "idle" legitimately maps to "active".
I expect that full deployment will reveal issues that haven't been
noticed yet, so I also expect to see this document back for
revisions in a few years.
Peter Yee | 20 Feb 06:44 2015

Gen-ART LC review for draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode-27

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-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode-27
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review Date: Feb-19-2015
IETF LC End Date: Feb-19-2015
IESG Telechat date: TBD

Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication as a Standards Track
RFC, but has some nits that should be fixed before publication. [Ready with
nits.]

The draft specifies the encoding of information elements necessary for WSON
switching.  I've no real issues with the document other than some (mostly)
unimportant nits.

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits:

General:

There are a few occurrences of "i.e. XYZ" (that is, "i.e." followed by a
(Continue reading)

Meral Shirazipour | 19 Feb 18:34 2015
Picon

Gen-ART Telechat Call review of draft-ietf-httpauth-basicauth-update-06

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-httpauth-basicauth-update-06

Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour

Review Date: 2015-02-19

IETF LC End Date: 2015-02-19

IESG Telechat date: 2015-02-19

 

Summary: This draft is ready to be published as Standards Track RFC but I have some comments.

 

Nits/editorial comments:

-[Page 4], "the definition of the '"Digest" authentication scheme"--->remove extra ' before Digest

-[Page 7], not sure about this, since this RFC is a Standards Track, how do we handle its  dependence on draft: [PRECIS] draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis-13? I.e. will we wait for that draft to be RFC first?

"

For the password, recipients MUST support all characters defined in

   the "OpaqueString" profile defined in in Section 4.2 of [PRECIS].

"

 

 

Best Regards,

Meral

---

Meral Shirazipour

Ericsson

Research

www.ericsson.com

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
Russ Housley | 17 Feb 18:03 2015

Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-teas-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-01

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>.

This review is in response to a request for early Gen-ART review.

Document: draft-ietf-teas-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-01
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2015-02-12
IETF LC End Date: 2015-02-23
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary:  Ready

Major Concerns:  None

Minor Concerns:  None

Other Comments:  Just one

The structure of Section 2 seems odd to me.  I suggest this alternative:

2.  Conventions Used in This Document

2.1.  Key Word Definitions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

2.2.  Reverse Unidirectional LSPs Definition

   Two reverse unidirectional LSPs are setup in the opposite directions
   between a pair of source and destination nodes to form an associated
   bidirectional LSP.  A reverse unidirectional LSP originates on the
   same node where the forward unidirectional LSP terminates, and it
   terminates on the same node where the forward unidirectional LSP
   originates.

2.3.  Message Formats

   This document uses the Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF) to define
   message formats as defined in [RFC5511].

Gmane