[Gen-art] (resent) review of draft-ietf-avt-rtcp-guidelines-03.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-avt-rtcp-guidelines-03.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2010-05-06 IETF LC End Date: 2010-05-10 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready with nits Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: - ToC page 2 and 8 page 15: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments - 1 page 3: please introduce abbrevs here (SSRC, SR, RR) - 3 page 4: same for SSM and XR - 3 page 4, 3.1 page 6, 5 page 11 (twice), 6 page 15 (twice): e.g. -> e.g., - 3.1 page 5: I propose: 0.5 ... 1.5 -> from 0.5 to 1.5 - 3.1 page 6: kb/s -> kbits/s - 3.1 page 6: please introduce the MCU abbrev here - 3.3 page 8: quintuple -> 5-tuple ? - 4 pages 9 and 10, 5 pages 12 and 13: acknowledgements -> acknowledgments - 4 page 9: implosion -> explosion (BTW implosion makes sense only in building destruction and some nuclear weapons, and is pretty hard, fortunately for the second item :-). - 9.1 page 15: RFC1925 is informational so to put it as normative is perhaps a bit excessive... - 9.1 page 16: please move RFC5117 to informative references Regards francis.dup...@fdupont.fr ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
[Gen-art] (resent) review of draft-ietf-mboned-ipv4-uni-based-mcast-06.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-mboned-ipv4-uni-based-mcast-06.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2010-05-12 IETF LC End Date: 2010-05-17 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: - 1 page 3: assignment ... need -> assignments? (please reread the statement and improve it) Regards francis.dup...@fdupont.fr PS: IMHO this document will stress the frustration of people who get a prefix longer than /24 (:-)... ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
[Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-csi-send-name-type-registry-03
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-csi-send-name-type-registry-03.txt Reviewer: Elwyn Davies Review Date: 14 May 2010 IETF LC End Date: 14 May 2010 IESG Telechat date: (if known) - Summary: Probably not ready. There seems to be a conflict or confusion between the prescriptive specification of a single algorithm for how the Subject Key Identifier has to be created in this document and the permissive specification in RFC 5280 that allows any suitable algorithm. Either this specification will only deal with certificates that use the chosen SHA-1 hash or this specification is unnecessarily restrictive. There are also a a few (related) minor issues and nits. Major issues: s3/s3.1: There seems to be some confusion here. Section 4.2.1.2 of RFC 5280 does not specify a unique method for encoding the Subject Key Identifier extension and there doesn't appear to be any method of finding out what method was (allegedly) used to generate the Subject Key Identifier. S3 specifies that the SEND TA option has to carry the Key identifier in a specific one of those forms (#1 in RFC 5280). S3.1 specifies that the TA option carries the value from the SKI extension (without knowing whether that field is the SHA-1 form or some other). It appears that this document is placing a restriction on the algorithm used to generate the SKI extension value, but without saying this explicitly. This all seems a bit of a mess.. or am I missing something? Presumably the reason for the DER-encoding cruft is to facilitate simple comparison. Minor issues: s3/s3.1: Is the 'Key Identifier' described here sent as the value of the 'Name' field in the TA option? If so, say so. Otherwise explain what is in the Name field in this case and where the Key Identifier fits in. s3: Needs a reference to specify how to do DER-encoding of ASN.1 (and DER needs expanding). Nits/editorial comments: Abstract: s/This document request to IANA/This document is a request to IANA for the/ s2, para 1: s/to certify a router authority/to certify a router's authority/. s/for NDP/for the NDP/, s/This document request to IANA/This document is a request to IANA for the/ s2, para 2: s/the certificates are declared/the certificates ia declared/ s3: It would be clearer if the line starting '3 SHA-1' was indented a bit and the description separated so that it doesn't sit under the 'Name Type' header. Something like: Name TypeDescription 3SHA-1 Subject Key Identifier (SKI) s4, last para: s/is through/require/; there should be a reference to RFC 5226. ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
[Gen-art] Assignments for May 20, 2010 Telechat
Hi all, Here's the link to the summary of assignments for the May 20, 2010 telechat: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100520.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: 20 May 2010 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] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 14 May 2010
Hi all, Here's the link to the new LC assignments for this week: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100513-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] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-turner-encryptedkeypackagecontenttype-algs-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-turner-encryptedkeypackagecontenttype-algs-02.txt Reviewer: Brian Carpenter Review Date: 2010-05-15 IESG Telechat date: 2010-05-20 Summary: Ready My Last Call comments were taken care of, thanks. ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
