Some misunderstanding, I think.
Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section
2.2 of http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case
when there are no actions for IANA.)
Regards
Brian
On 30/06/2015 11:53, Uma Chunduri wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
>> However, note that an IANA Considerations section is always required, even
>> if it says that no IANA action is necessary.
>
> I removed this as per the guidance of Amanda (IANA). I am not sure it's
> always required. Amanda, could you please confirm on this?
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> Uma C.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 4:37 PM
> To: Uma Chunduri; draft-ietf-karp-isis-analysis....@ietf.org; General Area
> Review Team
> Subject: Re: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-karp-isis-analysis-04
>
> That looks fine (in the -06), thanks.
>
> However, note that an IANA Considerations section is always required, even if
> it says that no IANA action is necessary.
>
> Regards
> Brian Carpenter
>
> On 30/06/2015 08:38, Uma Chunduri wrote:
>> Hi Brian,
>>
>> Thanks for your consideration and for providing the modified text quickly.
>> That works and it's a great help.
>> Shall update this in the next version.
>> --
>> Uma C.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 1:32 PM
>> To: Uma Chunduri; draft-ietf-karp-isis-analysis....@ietf.org; General
>> Area Review Team
>> Subject: Re: Gen-ART Last Call review of
>> draft-ietf-karp-isis-analysis-04
>>
>> Hi Uma,
>>
>> See below...
>> On 30/06/2015 06:19, Uma Chunduri wrote:
>>> Hi Brian,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your review (apologies for the delay from my side).
>>> Response i-line [Uma]:
>>>
>>> --
>>> Uma C.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 7:37 PM
>>> To: draft-ietf-karp-isis-analysis....@ietf.org; General Area Review
>>> Team
>>> Subject: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-karp-isis-analysis-04
>>>
>>> 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-karp-isis-analysis-04.txt
>>> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
>>> Review Date: 2015-06-13
>>> IETF LC End Date: 2015-07-03
>>> IESG Telechat date:
>>>
>>> Summary: Almost ready
>>> --------
>>>
>>> Minor Issue:
>>> ------------
>>>
>>>> 3.2. Key Management Protocols
>>>
>>> I don't like the references to expired drafts. These drafts almost have the
>>> flavour of normative references, since apparently they described
>>> recommended mitigation techniques. If they matter, they should be properly
>>> available.
>>> draft-weis-gdoi-mac-tek-03
>>> draft-yeung-g-ikev2-08
>>> draft-hartman-karp-mrkmp-05
>>>
>>> [Uma]: Sure. But to give a bit context quickly -
>>>
>>> KARP WG started working on group keying protocol based on IKEv2 when I used
>>> these references. But, later scope is changed and this aspect didn't go
>>> forward as expected.
>>> So I would remove the references to draft-yeung-g-ikev2-08 and
>>> draft-hartman-karp-mrkmp-05. However, though expired, I would like
>>> to keep the reference for
>>> draft-weis-gdoi-mac-tek-03 and associated RFC 6407, so in future it can
>>> present a good reference to GDOI in this context. Hope this is acceptable
>>> else I shall remove this too.
>>
>> Thanks for the answer. I am still a bit concerned that a reader will be
>> slightly confused, though. Can I suggest trying to rephrase the sentence a
>> bit, something like:
>>
>> OLD:
>> A mechanism,
>> similar to as described in [I-D.weis-gdoi-mac-tek] can be used to
>> distribute group keys to a group of ISes in Level-1 area or Level-2
>> domain, using GDOI as specified in [RFC6407].
>>
>> NEW:
>> A mechanism is needed to distribute group keys to a group of ISes
>> in a Level-1 area or Level-2 domain, using the Group Domain of
>> Interpretation (GDOI) protocol as specified in [RFC6407]. An example
>> policy and payload format was described in [I-D.weis-gdoi-mac-tek].
>>
>> Regards
>> Brian
>>
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
