Mary Barnes | 1 May 04:49 2009

A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 30 April 2009

Hi all,
 
Here's the link to the new LC assignments for this week:
http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-090430-lc.html

The assignments are captured in the spreadsheets:
http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/gen-art.html
http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/gen-art-by-reviewer.html

The standard template is included below.
Thanks,
Mary.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
Reviewer:
Review Date:
IETF LC End Date:
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary:

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

















_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
Mary Barnes | 1 May 04:51 2009

Assignments for May 7, 2009 Telechat

Hi all,

Here's the link to the summary of assignments for the May 07, 2009 telechat:
http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-090507.html

With the updated spreadsheets:
http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/gen-art.html
http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/gen-art-by-reviewer.html

For your convenience, the review boilerplate template is included below.

Note that reviews should ideally be posted to the gen-art mailing list by COB on Tuesday:
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/review-guidelines.html


Mary.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

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:
Reviewer:
Review Date:
IESG Telechat date: 07 May 2009

Summary:

Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:








_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
Alexey Melnikov | 1 May 13:14 2009

Re: Gen-art review of draft-ncook-urlauth-accessid-02.txt

Elwyn Davies wrote:

> Hi Neil.
>
> Sorry for the long delay in replying.
>
> I suggest you check with your shepherding AD to discuss an approriate 
> registration contact point.  You are probably right to use your 
> personal address.

Elwyn/Neil,
There was a similar issue in the Sieve and there we decided to use the 
WG mailing list as well.

At the moment I am not planning to close the Lemonade mailing list when 
the Lemonade WG gets closed. I think this reference is as stable as we 
can get.
Should the mailing list close, all relevant IANA registrations can be 
updated to point to a new place. So I don't see an issue.

> Regards,
> Elwyn
>
>> Elwyn,
>>
>>   thanks for the comment about the registration contact point. I've 
>> gone back and forth on this - originally it was my email address 
>> specified, and then I changed it based on group feedback to the 
>> address of the group. You're right about the WG mailing list address 
>> terminating, and in fact I don't mind being the contact point for 
>> these registrations, so I'm happy for this to be changed from the WG 
>> mailing list address to my address, i.e. neil.cook at noware.co.uk
>> thanks,
>>
>> Neil
>>
>> On 13 Apr 2009, at 23:57, Elwyn Davies 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-ncook-urlauth-accessid-02.txt
>>     Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
>>     Review Date: 13 April 2009
>>     IETF LC End Date: 24 April 2009
>>     IESG Telechat date: (if known) -
>>
>>     Summary:
>>     Ready for IESG.
>>        
>>     One nit: Specifying the address of a working group mailing list as
>>     the contact point for the registrations in Sections 6.2-6.5 is
>>     inappropriate because the WG mailing list is expected to terminate
>>     at a finite time in the future.
>
--

-- 
IETF Application Area Director, <http://www.ietf.org/IESGmems.html>
Internet Messaging Team Lead, <http://www.isode.com>
JID: same as my email address
Elwyn Davies | 1 May 18:40 2009
Picon

Re: Gen-art review of draft-ncook-urlauth-accessid-02.txt

Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Elwyn Davies wrote:
>
>> Hi Neil.
>>
>> Sorry for the long delay in replying.
>>
>> I suggest you check with your shepherding AD to discuss an approriate 
>> registration contact point.  You are probably right to use your 
>> personal address.
>
> Elwyn/Neil,
> There was a similar issue in the Sieve and there we decided to use the 
> WG mailing list as well.
>
> At the moment I am not planning to close the Lemonade mailing list 
> when the Lemonade WG gets closed. I think this reference is as stable 
> as we can get.
> Should the mailing list close, all relevant IANA registrations can be 
> updated to point to a new place. So I don't see an issue.
Hi.

If the IESG and IANA are happy with this, fine.

/Elwyn
>
>> Regards,
>> Elwyn
>>
>>> Elwyn,
>>>
>>>   thanks for the comment about the registration contact point. I've 
>>> gone back and forth on this - originally it was my email address 
>>> specified, and then I changed it based on group feedback to the 
>>> address of the group. You're right about the WG mailing list address 
>>> terminating, and in fact I don't mind being the contact point for 
>>> these registrations, so I'm happy for this to be changed from the WG 
>>> mailing list address to my address, i.e. neil.cook at noware.co.uk
>>> thanks,
>>>
>>> Neil
>>>
>>> On 13 Apr 2009, at 23:57, Elwyn Davies 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-ncook-urlauth-accessid-02.txt
>>>     Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
>>>     Review Date: 13 April 2009
>>>     IETF LC End Date: 24 April 2009
>>>     IESG Telechat date: (if known) -
>>>
>>>     Summary:
>>>     Ready for IESG.
>>>            One nit: Specifying the address of a working group 
>>> mailing list as
>>>     the contact point for the registrations in Sections 6.2-6.5 is
>>>     inappropriate because the WG mailing list is expected to terminate
>>>     at a finite time in the future.
>>
Vijay K. Gurbani | 2 May 00:15 2009

Gen-ART review for draft-ietf-isms-tmsm-17

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-isms-tmsm-17.txt
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: May 1, 2009
IESG Telechat date: May 7, 2009

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.

I had reviewed tmsm-16 earlier and had found 0 major issues,
0 minor issues and 1 Nits/Editorial.  The Nits/Editorial is
still there in -17, but I don't think it is important
enough to stop the press.

For completeness, here is the Nits/Editorial:

1) The references appear to be off key; i.e., there is a lot
of space between the reference identifier and the reference
resource; e.g.:

    [RFC2119]                                 Bradner, S., "Key words for
                                              use in RFCs to Indicate
                                              Requirement Levels",
                                              BCP 14, RFC 2119,
                                              March 1997.
instead of

    [RFC2119]     Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
                  Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

Maybe some formatting problem?

Thanks,

- vijay
--

-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: vkg <at> {alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org}
WWW:   http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/bell-labs
Joel M. Halpern | 2 May 00:40 2009

[gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-proxy-proto-08.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-tsvwg-rsvp-proxy-proto-08.txt
     RSVP Extensions for Path-Triggered RSVP Receiver Proxy
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: 1-May-2009
IESG Telechat date: 07 May 2009

Summary: This document appears ready for publication as a proposed standard.

(Note that the earlier review by Robert Sparks appears to be missing 
from the archive, so this reviewer can not verify that any issues Robert 
  found have been addressed.)

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
Joel M. Halpern | 2 May 21:20 2009

[gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-sip-lo-retransmission-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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-geopriv-sip-lo-retransmission-02.txt
     Implications of 'retransmission-allowed' for SIP Location Conveyance
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: 2-May-2009
IETF LC End Date: 12-May-2009
IESG Telechat date: N/A

Summary: This document is ready for publication as an Informational RFC
Brian E Carpenter | 5 May 02:58 2009
Picon

Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mipshop-rfc5268bis-01.txt

gmane.ietf.gen-art
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-mipshop-rfc5268bis-01.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2009-05-05
IESG Telechat date: 2009-05-07


Summary:  Almost ready (two issues)
--------

Comments: 
--------- 

Thanks to whoever provided the diffs from RFC5268.

Author has agreed to changes for the major issues below.
The pre-5378 question is still open.

Major issues: 
-------------

I didn't notice a statement about what an implementation confirming
to this specification is supposed to do if it receives one of
the deprecated ICMPv6 messages defined in RFC5268. I would suggest
a clear definition of what 'deprecated' actually means. Something like

   Implementations of this specification MUST NOT send the ICMPv6
   messages of subtypes HI and HAck as defined in [RFC5268].
   If they receive such messages they MUST/MAY/SHOULD ????

(I don't have an opinion about this; two options would be
that they SHOULD interpret them as defined in 5268, 
or that they MUST discard them silently. I don't know all 
the implications of these choices.)


>  11.  IANA Considerations
...
>                                           The Subtype values 4 and 5	
>     are deprecated and are marked as unassigned for future allocations.

Is this safe? It would seem prudent to mark them as reserved, to avoid
future compatibility problems. Maybe this is intended, in which case
"unassigned" is the wrong word, and "unavailable" would be better.


Editorial issues:
-----------------

Given the long history of this material, does it need the pre-RFC5378
legal disclaimer?
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
Brian E Carpenter | 5 May 04:45 2009
Picon

Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-sip-ua-privacy-07.txt

gmane.ietf.gen-art
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-sip-ua-privacy-07.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2009-05-05
IETF LC End Date: 2009-05-11
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary:  Ready
--------

Comments: 
--------- 

Apart from the small point mentioned below, I didn't find any technical
issues with this draft, but it left me feeling a little uncomfortable. It isn't
a standard, it isn't an experiment, it isn't a description of current practice,
so what is it?


Minor issues: 
-------------

Referring to section 5.1.2, note that in RFC5364, "sip:anonymous <at> anonymous.invalid"
is a MUST rather than a SHOULD. I don't know whether that interacts with the
current draft in any way.


Editorial issues:
-----------------

== Outdated reference: A later version (-14) exists of
     draft-ietf-behave-turn-13
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
McCann Peter-A001034 | 5 May 19:34 2009

Review of draft-ietf-roll-indus-routing-reqs-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
<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-roll-indus-routing-reqs-05.txt
Reviewer:  Pete McCann
Review Date:  05 May 2009
IESG Telechat date: 07 May 2009 

Summary: Ready.  
         This draft addresses all of my comments on -04.  The new
Introduction is helpful.

Major issues: none
Minor issues: none
Nits/editorial comments: none

Gmane