[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-confirm-data-channel-status-08.txt Reviewer: Miguel Garcia Review Date: 2009-12-10 IETF LC End Date: 2009-12-16 IESG Telechat date: 2009-12-17 Summary: The document is ready for publication as a standards track RFC. Nits/editorial comments: In general, I have found problems with the English language. Perhaps you should get some English native speaker to give a pass to the draft to increase the readability. Now, let me give you some small details that you may want to fix: - The second paragraph of Section 4.1 acknowledges the existence of three types of Confirm Data Channel Status messages without naming them, but instead, referring to Section 7.1. In the sake of clarity of the content that goes in sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 4.1.3, I would suggest to add the names of the messages to that paragraph, for example: Three new messages are defined to check data channel status: ConfirmDataChannelStatus, ConfirmDataChannelStatusAck, ConfirmDataChannelStatusNack, which are described in detail in the following sections. Message Type numbers are found in Section 7.1. - In the last paragraph of Section 4.1, I found the text a bit misleading. This paragraph is describing the generalities that are applicable to all three types of ConfirmDataChannelStatus messages. However, the last paragraph reads: If the message is a Confirm Data Channel Status message... Obviously this test only applies to one of the types of messages, so I would consider more appropriate to move this paragraph to Section 4.1.1, which describes the Confirm Data Channel Status message. - Section 4.3, at the end of the second paragraph, the text discusses the Data Channel Status subobject, and the text reads: The new subobject MUST be part of Data_Link Class. I thought this text belongs to Section 4.2, which discusses in detail the Data Channel Status Subobject. - Section 5, first paragraph. The text is unparsable. It would be easier to read if it were written in active form and in separated sentences, for example: Adjacent nodes MAY send data channel status confirmation related LMP messages. Periodical timers or some other events requesting the confirmation of channel status for the data link may trigger these messages. - Section 5, each of the bullet points: I would suggest to give a bit more of context to the text, by indicating when the action begins. For example, take the second bullet point; You can start it by saying: # Upon reception of a ConfirmDataChannelStatus message, the RECEIVER MUST extract the data channel status from the message and SHOULD compare - Expand acronyms at first occurrence, e.g., LSR. - Nit in the first paragraph of Section 4.4. s/This document's defined mechanisms/These document's defined mechanisms ^ s/To use this mechanisms/To use these mechanisms ^^ - Section 5, typo s/It's a local police decision/It's a local policy decision ^^ /Miguel -- Miguel A. Garcia +34-91-339-3608 Ericsson Spain ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-bryan-http-digest-algorithm-values-update-03
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:35 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > 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. Hi Gonzalo, thank you for the review. > Draft: draft-bryan-http-digest-algorithm-values-update-03.txt > Reviewer: Gonzalo Camarillo > Review Date: 9 December 2009 > > Summary: > > This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should > be fixed before publication. > > > Comments: > > Abstracts should not contain references because it should be possible to > read them as stand-alone documents. Reference removed. The abstract now reads: "The IANA registry named "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Digest Algorithm Values" defines values for digest algorithms used by Instance Digests in HTTP. Instance Digests in HTTP provide a digest, also known as a checksum or hash, of an entire representation of the current state of a resource. This draft adds new values to the registry and updates previous values. " > The note in the second paragraph of the Introduction states that this is > unrelated to HTTP authentication. Adding an extra sentence explaining > what this relates to instead would be useful. Introduction: "The IANA registry named "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Digest Algorithm Values" defines values for digest algorithms used by Instance Digests in HTTP. Note: This is unrelated to HTTP Digest Authentication. Instance Digests in HTTP provide a digest, also known as a checksum or hash, of an entire representation of the current state of a resource. The registry was created by [RFC3230] in 2002. This draft adds new values to the registry and updates previous values which had redundant or outdated references. " > Section 4 does not mention the addition of two new algorithms. "The SHA-256 and SHA-512 algorithms have been added to the registry. " -- (( Anthony Bryan ... Metalink [ http://www.metalinker.org ] )) Easier, More Reliable, Self Healing Downloads ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
[Gen-art] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 10 Dec 2009
Hi all, Here's the link to the new LC assignments for this week: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-091210-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@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
[Gen-art] Assignments for Dec 17, 2009 Telechat
Hi all, Here's the link to the summary of assignments for the Dec 17, 2009 telechat: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-091217.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: 17 Dec 2009 Summary: Major issues: Minor issues: Nits/editorial comments: ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
[Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-rohc-rfc4995bis-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-rohc-rfc4995bis-02.txt Reviewer: Brian Carpenter Review Date: 2009-12-11 IETF LC End Date: 2009-12-04 IESG Telechat date: 2009-12-17 Summary: Ready My Last Call comments were fixed, thanks.___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospfv3-pece-04
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-l3vpn-ospfv3-pece-04 OSPFv3 as a PE-CE routing protocol Reviewer: Joel Halpern Review Date: 16-Oct-2009 IETF LC End Date: 23-Oct-2009 IESG Telechat date: N/A Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard. All outstanding issues from the previous review have been resolved. ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
[Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-rohc-hcoipsec-11.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-rohc-hcoipsec-12.txt Reviewer: Brian Carpenter Review Date: 2009-12-11 IETF LC End Date: 2009-09-17 IESG Telechat date: 2009-12-17 Summary: Ready My Last Call comments have been fixed, thanks.___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
[Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-ipfix-mib-09.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-ipfix-mib-06.txt Reviewer: Brian Carpenter Review Date: 2009-12-11 IETF LC End Date: 2009-04-03 IESG Telechat date: 2009-12-17 Summary: Ready Comments: - The technical description is clear and did not raise any questions in my mind. I did not check the MIB module in detail. I am happy with the changes made since Last Call, but I do note that they are substantial and I trust that they have been reviewed in the WG and by a MIB doctor. ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
