headers
Black_David | 1 Apr 2006 02:29

GenART review of draft-ietf-pana-framework-06.txt

Background for those who may be unaware of GenART:

GenART is the Area Review Team for the General Area of the IETF.
We advise the General Area Director (i.e. the IETF/IESG chair) by
providing more in depth reviews than he could do himself of documents
that come up for final decision in IESG telechat.  I was selected
as the GenART member to review this document.  Below is my review,
which was written specifically with an eye to the GenART process, but
since I believe that it will be useful to have these comments more
widely distributed, others outside the GenART group are included.

This review was done as part of IETF Last Call.

Review criteria: "Is this document a reasonable contribution to the
area of Internet engineering which it covers?  If not, what changes
would make it so?"

This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described
in the review.

The draft is generally well-written, although I was unable to follow
all of the details of the Wireless LAN examples, as familiarity with
the 802.11 protocol suite is assumed.  I found a number of issues,
mostly in the area of security:

This is an informational document using RFC 2119 terminology.  It
needs to say something about why this is the case (e.g., who should
pay attention to these requirements).  There are enough statements
about things that MUST be done in certain ways that I wonder 
whether this ought to be a standards track document.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Spencer Dawkins | 3 Apr 2006 17:43
Favicon

Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-pana-pana-11

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

Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as a Proposed 
Standard. It is clearly written and complete in most sections. I do have a 
small number of questions, listed below.

This document was very clear. A small number of editorial comments (not part 
of the Gen-ART review for Brian) are flagged separately. I hope they are 
useful.

Thanks,

Spencer

4.2.  Payload Encoding

Spencer (Editorial): This section is extremely useful, but it's not about 
"payload encoding" - more like "high-level Attribute-Value Pair 
description". I'd change the section title for clarity.

4.3.  Discovery and Handshake Phase

Spencer: I don't believe this MUST is a 2119 MUST - I'd shift it to lower 
case.

   When the PaC knows the IP address of the PAA, it can send a unicast
   PANA-PAA-Discover message and initiate the PANA exchange.  In other
   cases, the PaC MUST rely on dynamic discovery methods, such as
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Mary Barnes | 5 Apr 2006 00:24
Favicon

A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 4 April 2006

Hi all,

Here's the latest round of LC assignments: 
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art.html 
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-by-reviewer.html 

I've also updated it with the most recent reviews.  Let me know if I've
missed something. 

For our new reviewers (we now have 5 additional new reviewers with
Francis Dupont and Gonzalo Camarillo recently joining the team, along
with Sharon, Tom and Eric), please let me know if you have any questions
on the process for LC reviews.  It's basically the same as for the
telechats, with the primary exception being that the dates by which the
reviews should be done is defined by when the LC ends.  

Thanks, 
Mary. 

--------------------------- 
Reviewer: Sharon Chisholm

- 'Packet Reordering Metric for IPPM '
   <draft-ietf-ippm-reordering-11.txt> as a Proposed Standard

IETF LC ends on 2006-04-10.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ippm-reordering-11.txt
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Alper Yegin | 5 Apr 2006 17:15

RE: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-pana-pana-11/draft-ietf-pana-framework-06

Thank you Spencer and David for this very valuable review and comments! This
is extremely useful.

The authors will be working on the documents to reflect your input.

- PANA WG chairs
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mary Barnes | 7 Apr 2006 03:27
Favicon

Assignments for April 13th, 2006


Here's the assignments for the April 13th, 2006 telechat: 
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/reviewers-060413.html

with the corresponding spreadsheets available at: 
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art.html 
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-by-reviewer.html 

It appears to be another light week. 

Mary.
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Black_David | 7 Apr 2006 06:14

GenART review of draft-ietf-pkix-cert-utf8-02.txt

Background for those who may be unaware of GenART:

GenART is the Area Review Team for the General Area of the IETF.
We advise the General Area Director (i.e. the IETF/IESG chair) by
providing more in depth reviews than he could do himself of documents
that come up for final decision in IESG telechat.  I was selected
as the GenART member to review this document.  Below is my review,
which was written specifically with an eye to the GenART process, but
since I believe that it will be useful to have these comments more
widely distributed, others outside the GenART group are included.

This review was done as part of IETF Last Call.

Review criteria: "Is this document a reasonable contribution to the
area of Internet engineering which it covers?  If not, what changes
would make it so?"

This draft is basically ready for publication as a Proposed
Standard RFC, but has nits that should be fixed before publication.

Overall, the draft appears to be a significant improvement and
simplification of this area of certificate and CRL processing.
I found one nit:

The first sentence in the new block of text in Section 5 is not a
complete sentence - if the intent was to apply the same encoding
preference as in section 4.1.2.4, a verb is needed to do so.

Thanks,
--David
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Brian E Carpenter | 7 Apr 2006 15:45
Picon
Favicon

Re: Assignments for April 13th, 2006


> It appears to be another light week. 

Don't bet on that continuing. The new ADs and a whole
new Area are coming up to speed.

    brian
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Sam Hartman | 7 Apr 2006 20:38
Picon
Favicon

Re: GenART review of draft-ietf-pkix-cert-utf8-02.txt

Russ, if you want to propose an rfc-editor note I'd be happy to deal
with this.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Elwyn Davies | 10 Apr 2006 11:45

Gen-art review of draft-josefsson-rfc3548bis-02

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

Document: draft-josefsson-rfc3548bis-02
Intended Status: Proposed Standard (Individual submission via AD)
Shepherding AD: Ted Hardie
Review Trigger: IETF Last Call (ends 1 May 2006)

Summary:
This is almost ready for PS.  I suspect (but don't know on account of 
not being an IPR lawyer) that, in trying to do the 'right thing', the 
author may have created an impossible (or maybe just excessively 
complicated) copyright position regarding the code in s11.  The document 
now contains three different statements that are intended to apply to 
the code: BCP78, the GNU copyright statements embedded in the code and 
s15. Help!

Aside from this there are a couple of minor issues (below) and a number of

Minor issues:
s11/s15: potential IPR (statement) issue: Is there any interaction  
between the overall BCP78 copyright position, the GNU copyright 
positions mentioned in the code sections and the author's statements in 
s15?  BCP78 seems to indicate that s11 could be freely copied and 
wouldn't need any copyright statements.

s3.4, last para:
> In this document, we document and *name* some currently used alphabets.
Names are not explicitly given to all the alphabets.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Tom-PT Taylor | 11 Apr 2006 23:20
Favicon

Gen-ART review of draft-santesson-tls-supp-00.txt

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

Document: draft-santesson-tls-supp-00.txt
Intended Status: Proposed Standard (Individual submission via AD)
Shepherding AD: Russ Housley
Review Trigger: IETF Last Call (ends 13 April 2006)

Summary: This document is ready for Proposed Standard. I found one nit:

In the second sentence of section 7 IANA Considerations, the term "TLS 
Authorization Data Format identifiers" is used. I believe that should be 
"TLS Supplemental Data Format identifiers".

I note that RFC 2119 capitalization was used for protocol requirements, 
but requirements on other documents defining specific extensions used 
small letter "must". I would be interested to learn if this is accepted 
policy, since I have charge of an I-D that is defining requirements on 
other documents.

Tom Taylor
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |

Gmane