thanks for your review again, Robert! Jari
On 01 Sep 2015, at 21:54, Robert Sparks <rjspa...@nostrum.com> wrote: > For completeness in the gen-art archives and so that Jari doesn't have to go > looking: > > (boilerplate elided) > > Summary: Ready for publication as a Proposed Standard > > On 8/4/15 1:43 PM, Robert Sparks wrote: >> (apologies to the genart list who will see this as a duplicate): >> >> 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-hansen-scram-sha256 >> Reviewer: Robert Sparks >> Review Date: 04-Aug-2015 >> IETF LC End Date: 25-Aug-2015 >> IESG Telechat date: not yet on any telechat >> >> Summary: Ready for publication as a Proposed Standard >> >> The change to PS addresses the concern I expressed in the review below. >> miniscule-nit: I still think the extra URI section after the references is >> not needed. >> >> RjS >> >> On 4/2/15 1:41 PM, Robert Sparks wrote: >>> 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-hansen-scram-sha256 >>> Reviewer: Robert Sparks >>> Review Date: 2Apr2015 >>> IETF LC End Date: 24Apr2015 >>> IESG Telechat date: (if known) >>> >>> Summary: Ready for publication as Informational, with nits that should be >>> considered. >>> >>> Nits/editorial comments: >>> >>> Nit: >>> It raises flags for me when an Informational document uses "Updates" on a >>> standards track document. >>> I would argue that this does _not_ update 5802. IANA did the things that >>> 5802 requested, and this document >>> is requesting something else that happens to change those things. That >>> makes this more of a "see also" than >>> a "the protocol changed", and I think the Updates should be removed. >>> >>> I don't feel super strongly about the difference in _this particular case_, >>> hence its classification as a Nit. >>> But for consistency, and avoiding the issue of having an Informational >>> update a PS, I hope you choose to remove it. >>> >>> Editorial comment: >>> The URLs in the references section seem superfluous since you've already >>> expanded them in the introduction? >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gen-art mailing list >>> Gen-art@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
