headers
Colin Perkins | 4 Sep 2007 15:04

Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-avt-profile-savpf-11.txt

Ben - Thanks for the review!

Joerg/Elisabetta: can you comment?

Colin

On 27 Aug 2007, at 19:28, Ben Campbell wrote:
> 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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive.
>
>
> Document: draft-ietf-avt-profile-savpf-11.txt
> Reviewer: Ben Campbell
> Review Date: 27-August 2007
> IETF LC End Date: 2007-08-31
>
> Summary:
>
> This document is almost ready for publication, but has an open issue.
>
> I am concerned about some SHOULD strength normative requirements  
> that have security implications.  Did the Working Group discuss  
> whether these should be "SHOULDs" or "MUSTs"? If so, is it possible  
> to capture the motivation for using SHOULD in this document, or  
> give examples of scenarios where one might want to violate the  
> requirements?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Gonzalo Camarillo | 4 Sep 2007 18:31
Picon
Favicon

Gen-art review of draft-ietf-mip6-ha-switch-03.txt

Hi,

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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Draft: draft-ietf-mip6-ha-switch-03.txt
Reviewer: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo <at> ericsson.com>
Review Date: 4 September 2007

Summary:

This draft is ready for publication as a PS RFC.

Comments:

The terminology section is typically a different section after the
Introduction. In this draft, it is an unnumbered section after the Abstract.

The recommended reference format is [RFC3775] instead of [1], which the
draft uses.

Thanks,

Gonzalo
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mary Barnes | 5 Sep 2007 04:43
Favicon

RE: Assignments for 06 Sept 2007

I've uploaded the reviews received to date, along with the spreadsheets
in the links.  Let me know if there are any errors or omissions.

Thanks,
Mary. 

________________________________

From: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00) 
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:46 PM
To: gen-art <at> ietf.org
Cc: christian.vogt <at> nomadiclab.com
Subject: [Gen-art] Assignments for 06 Sept 2007

Hi all, 

Here's the link to the summary of assignments for the Sept 6th, 2007
telechat: 
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/reviewers-070906.html
<http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/reviewers-070906.html>  

With the updated spreadsheets: 
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art.html
<http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art.html>  
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-by-reviewer.html
<http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-by-reviewer.html>  

Note that for documents that you've already reviewed for LC that appear
on the telechat, 
I automatically transfer your LC review as the review for the telechat.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 501 comments |
headers
Joerg Ott | 4 Sep 2007 15:08
Picon

Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-avt-profile-savpf-11.txt

On my list.  But not before next week (too many reviews in progress).

Joerg

> Ben - Thanks for the review!
> 
> Joerg/Elisabetta: can you comment?
> 
> Colin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 27 Aug 2007, at 19:28, Ben Campbell wrote:
> 
>> 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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
>> you may receive.
>>
>>
>> Document: draft-ietf-avt-profile-savpf-11.txt
>> Reviewer: Ben Campbell
>> Review Date: 27-August 2007
>> IETF LC End Date: 2007-08-31
>>
>> Summary:
>>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Francis Dupont | 5 Sep 2007 14:35
Picon

review of draft-ietf-mip6-experimental-messages-01.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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-mip6-experimental-messages-01.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date:  2007-09-04
IETF LC End Date: 2007-09-12
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready

Comments: some editorial questions:
 - in abstract page 1: s/header/Header/
   BTW as MH is the common abbrev Mobility Header should always get the 'H'.
   This is not clear for Mobility Option but a choice has to be done and
   applied...
 - ToC and section 7: s/Acknowledgements/Acknowledgments/
 - section 1 page 3: s/Proxy MIPv6/Proxy Mobile IPv6/
 - the figure in page 3 seems a bit strange because some important and
   decribed fields are not in it. I believe it is directly from RFC 3775
   section 6.1 "Mobility Header" which gives only the content of messages,
   so IMHO this section needs an explicit reference to RFC 3775 6.1.

Regards

Francis.Dupont <at> fdupont.fr
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 80 comments |
headers
Ben Campbell | 5 Sep 2007 23:45

Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-dhc-pxelinux-02.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-dhc-pxelinux-02.txt
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date:  05 Sept 2007
IESG Telechat date: 06 Sept 2007

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an informational RFC

Comments:

Due to my being out of touch over the Labor Day weekend, I did not  
receive this assignment until only a couple of days prior to the  
telechat. Therefore this is a lighter-weight review that I prefer to  
give for gen-art purposes. I unfortunately also missed the Tuesday  
before the telechat deadline by a day, but I am sending this in hopes  
it is still useful.

I am not an expert in DHCP, and assume that the DHCP gurus have read  
and are okay with the draft.

But in general this draft seems to be in the spirit of RFC 3942. It  
documents DHCP options for prelinux that IANA lists as tentatively  
assigned to it.  It is describes an existing system rather than  
prescribes preferred behavior, as appropriate for an informational
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Miguel Garcia | 6 Sep 2007 09:01

Gen-ART review of IETF LC draft-ietf-mip6-vsm-01.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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-mip6-vsm-01.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <miguel.garcia <at> nsn.com>
Review Date: 2007-09-06
IETF LC End Date: 2007-09-12
IESG Telechat: 2007-09-20

Summary: This document is ready for publication as a proposed standard RFC

Comments: Perhaps the only minor comment is to name the IANA registries 
by their name. For example:

- In the description of the Vendor ID:

    Vendor ID

       The SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Code of the IANA 
maintained Private Enterprise Numbers registry.

- In Section 5:

    This document instructs IANA to allocate a value to the Vendor 
Specific mobility option of the Mobility Options registry created by RFC 
3775 [2].
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Mary Barnes | 7 Sep 2007 04:12
Favicon

A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 6 Sept 2007

Hi all,

Here's this week's LC assignments: 
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art.html 
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-by-reviewer.html 

The standard template is included at the end of the assignments.  

Thanks, 
Mary. 

--------------------------- 
Reviewer: Robert Sparks

- 'Overview of the Internet Multicast Routing Architecture '
   <draft-ietf-mboned-routingarch-09.txt> as a BCP

IETF LC ends on 2007-09-19. 

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mboned-routingarch-09.txt

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=
13102&rfc_flag=0

--------------------------- 
Reviewer: Harald Alvestrand
Note: previously assigned this doc for 10/26/2006 (OBE), IETF LC had
been assigned to JL (OBE),
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Vijay Devarapalli | 10 Sep 2007 05:02

Re: Gen-ART review of IETF LC draft-ietf-mip6-vsm-01.txt

Hi Miguel,

Thanks for the review.

Miguel Garcia wrote:

> Summary: This document is ready for publication as a proposed standard RFC
> 
> Comments: Perhaps the only minor comment is to name the IANA registries 
> by their name. For example:
> 
> - In the description of the Vendor ID:
> 
>    Vendor ID
> 
>       The SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Code of the IANA 
> maintained Private Enterprise Numbers registry.
> 
> - In Section 5:
> 
>    This document instructs IANA to allocate a value to the Vendor 
> Specific mobility option of the Mobility Options registry created by RFC 
> 3775 [2].

Made these two changes.

> Value  Description                  Reference
> -----  ---------------------------  ---------
>     x  Vendor Specific Option       [RFC XXXX]
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Christian Vogt | 10 Sep 2007 14:07

Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-mip6-cn-ipsec-05

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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document:  draft-ietf-mip6-cn-ipsec-05
Reviewer:  Christian Vogt
Review Date:  September 10, 2007
IETF LC End Date:  September 9, 2007
IESG Telechat date:  --

Summary:  Ready with nits.

Comments:

An important requirement for IPsec-based protection of Mobile IPv6 route
optimization is that the IPsec security associations are bound to the mobile
node's home address.  A malicious mobile node could otherwise misuse its own
security association for impersonating the home address of a different mobile
node.  The draft ensures this requirement in section 3 by saying that...

>  -  the Traffic Selectors MUST match exclusively the Home Address of
>     the Mobile Node and an address of the Correspondent Node (the
>     address used for communication between peers).

Yet the importance of this requirement, as well as its reason and effect, is
unlikely to become clear to the non-expert reader.  I would recommend adding a
section in the Security Considerations sections elaborating on this.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 17 comments |

Gmane