Black_David | 1 Jul 03:01 2006

Gen ART review of draft-nystrom-eap-potp-05.txt

Magnus,

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for draft-nystrom-eap-potp-05.txt
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.

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

The draft is generally well written, and reasonably clear.
Everything I found is minor, but a couple of the concerns
rise to the level of open issues that deserve attention.

---------- Issues ----------

(A) Page 31: the definition of "msg_hash" in running text is dense,
informal and mixes the algorithm for computing the hash input
with a description of the design rationale for the algorithm.  The
result may be error-prone for an implementer.

This should be separated to explicitly specify the algorithm step by
step, and then explain why the algorithm is the way it is.  At a high
level, the algorithm has two basic steps:
	1) Concatenate specified messages excluding retransmissions.
	2) Remove a list of fields and TLVs from the concatenation,
		shortening it.
The explanation of the algorithm should explain why step 2) is a
(Continue reading)

Black_David | 1 Jul 03:13 2006

GEN-Art NON-review of draft-alvestrand-ipod-02.txt

The GenART review of the -01 version of this draft lead to
a discussion between a former IETF Chair and the current IETF
Chair that started out with:

> However, I am going to take the unusual step of declaring that I'm not

> going to address a single one of them as a result of Last Call -
because 
> in every case, the points you raise are deliberate design choices in
the 
> way I constructed IONs.

On that basis, I see no point in re-reviewing the -02 version.
This draft is (quite appropriately) in Brian's and Harald's hands
to deal with - both are experienced experts in the IETF process
issues that this draft deals with.

Note: Please do not read this email as pique or annoyance - this
is a fairly obvious process optimization for a rather unusual draft.

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
black_david <at> emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------
Picon

RE: review of draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-ethernet-07.txt

Mark, Francis, Jari,

I will follow up with this and post a new revision soon.

thanx,
alice

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Townsley (townsley) 
> Sent: Friday, 30 June, 2006 8:18
> To: Francis Dupont
> Cc: gen-art <at> ietf.org; rahul <at> juniper.net; mark <at> townsley.net; 
> Maria A. Dos Santos (mariados); Jari Arkko
> Subject: Re: review of draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-ethernet-07.txt
> 
> 
> Thanks for the review, Francis. I agree that the document is 
> in need of another revision. Alice, do you have the source 
> and can you take on addressing these comments?
> 
> Please see inline. I suggest some text for some of the 
> comments, and have one or two questions as well.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> - Mark
> 
> Francis Dupont wrote:
> > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this I-D.
> > For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at 
(Continue reading)

Brian E Carpenter | 3 Jul 10:00 2006
Picon

Re: GEN-Art NON-review of draft-alvestrand-ipod-02.txt

Thanks for taking it in that spirit!

If it's approved, since it's an experiment, we'll find
out who's right in a year...

Black_David <at> emc.com wrote:
> The GenART review of the -01 version of this draft lead to
> a discussion between a former IETF Chair and the current IETF
> Chair that started out with:
> 
> 
>>However, I am going to take the unusual step of declaring that I'm not
> 
> 
>>going to address a single one of them as a result of Last Call -
> 
> because 
> 
>>in every case, the points you raise are deliberate design choices in
> 
> the 
> 
>>way I constructed IONs.
> 
> 
> On that basis, I see no point in re-reviewing the -02 version.
> This draft is (quite appropriately) in Brian's and Harald's hands
> to deal with - both are experienced experts in the IETF process
> issues that this draft deals with.
> 
(Continue reading)

Robert Sparks | 3 Jul 18:38 2006

Genart review: draft-ietf-radext-rfc2619bis-04.txt (was Re: Genart review: draft-ietf-radext-rfc2619bis-03.txt)

Just to dot an i:

I've compared -04 to -03 and still find this draft ready for  
publication :)

The nits that Michael Patton reported on this draft in his review of  
2618bis
have been addressed (including moving the reference to 4001 to  
normative).

RjS

On Jun 12, 2006, at 12:58 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:

> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for draft-ietf-radext- 
> rfc2619bis-03.txt
>
> For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http:// 
> www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.
>
> SUMMARY: This draft is ready for publication as a Standards Track RFC
>
> Comments:
>
> The text of this draft is very clear. In particular, the text  
> explaining the reason
> for obsoleting 2619 is particularly effective.
>
> The draft passes nits, and conforms to the guidelines in 4181  
> section 3.
(Continue reading)

Francis Dupont | 3 Jul 20:44 2006
Picon

review of draft-miller-media-type-cellml-03.txt

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for
draft-miller-media-type-cellml-03.txt
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: ready

Some little comments/suggestions which can be handled in AUTH48:
the case of Format/format is not uniform, I propose Format everywhere
if it is really a part of the name, or Format the first time and format
for further cases, or format.
in 3: mathmatical -> mathematical
As the style is native (i.e,, not American) English I propose in 4 for
Author/Change "shall" in place of "will" in "... itself will not change ."

Regards

Francis.Dupont <at> point6.net

PS: the reference begins by "The CellML Umbrella format" so IMHO format
should be lower case everywhere in the I-D even if the reference has
no uniform use of lower case for "format"...
Black_David | 3 Jul 21:10 2006

RE: GEN-Art NON-review of draft-alvestrand-ipod-02.txt

Brian,

Please understand that my concerns are not whether it's
a good idea or not - IONs are almost certainly a good idea.
Rather my major concerns are:
- This is far looser than what RFC 3933 envisioned as
	experiments.
- I hope that IETF Last Call is used appropriately,
	independent of what the draft may or may not say.
We will probably do ok, as we tend to put reasonable people
in charge.

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brc <at> zurich.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 4:00 AM
> To: Black, David
> Cc: harald <at> alvestrand.no; gen-art <at> ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] GEN-Art NON-review of 
> draft-alvestrand-ipod-02.txt
> 
> Thanks for taking it in that spirit!
> 
> If it's approved, since it's an experiment, we'll find
> out who's right in a year...
> 
> Black_David <at> emc.com wrote:
> > The GenART review of the -01 version of this draft lead to
(Continue reading)

Andrew Miller | 3 Jul 23:52 2006
Picon
Picon

Re: review of draft-miller-media-type-cellml-03.txt

Francis Dupont wrote:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for
> draft-miller-media-type-cellml-03.txt
> For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> <http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.
>   
Hi Francis,

Thanks for the review. Please see my inlined comments below.
> Please resolve these comments along with any other
> Last Call comments you may receive.
>
> Summary: ready
>
> Some little comments/suggestions which can be handled in AUTH48:
> the case of Format/format is not uniform, I propose Format everywhere
> if it is really a part of the name, or Format the first time and format
> for further cases, or format.
>   
I have changed all appearances of "Format" to "format", except in the 
phrase "CellML Umbrella Format Registry" (which is the correct case, as 
per the specification). I will be submitting a revised draft to correct 
this shortly.
> in 3: mathmatical -> mathematical
>   
This was fixed unintentionally in draft-miller-media-type-cellml-04, 
which has not yet been processed by the IETF secretariat.
> As the style is native (i.e,, not American) English I propose in 4 for
> Author/Change "shall" in place of "will" in "... itself will not change ."
>   
(Continue reading)

Spencer Dawkins | 4 Jul 17:42 2006

Re: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-ps-04


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer <at> mcsr-labs.org>
To: "General Area Review Team" <gen-art <at> ietf.org>
Cc: "Roberts Phil-APR042" <Phil.Roberts <at> motorola.com>; "Jari Arkko" 
<jari.arkko <at> piuha.net>; "James Kempf" <Kempf <at> docomolabs-usa.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 10:39 AM
Subject: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-ps-04

>I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft, currently on an IESG
> telechat agenda. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> <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.
>
> Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as an Informational 
> RFC, but two problems (larger than nits) need to be fixed. They are tagged 
> as "Spencer/Problem:", and appear in Sections 1.1 and 3.1. Both should be 
> fixable using RFC Editor notes, if no further revision of the document is 
> produced.
>
> Other comments are included for the document editor and RFC editor's 
> convenience, but aren't part of the Gen-ART review.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Spencer
>
>  Abstract
(Continue reading)

Spencer Dawkins | 4 Jul 17:39 2006

Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-ps-04

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft, currently on an IESG
telechat agenda. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<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.

Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as an Informational 
RFC, but two problems (larger than nits) need to be fixed. They are tagged 
as "Spencer/Problem:", and appear in Sections 1.1 and 3.1. Both should be 
fixable using RFC Editor notes, if no further revision of the document is 
produced.

Other comments are included for the document editor and RFC editor's 
convenience, but aren't part of the Gen-ART review.

Thanks,

Spencer

  Abstract

Spencer: "makes a case for network-based local mobility management" just 
seems odd in a problem statement Abstract (would have made more sense in the 
requirements draft). "and presents a "Problem Statement" based on the 
identified shortcomings of previous solutions." maybe? But the Introduction 
does a much better job of describing what's being done here.

     Localized mobility management is a well understood concept in the
     IETF with a number of solutions already available. This document
(Continue reading)


Gmane