[Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-avtext-mixer-to-client-audio-level-05

[Wassim Haddad]

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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a 
new version of the draft.

Document:  draft-ietf-avtext-mixer-to-client-audio-level-05
Reviewer:  Wassim Haddad
Review Date: November 1st, 2011
IESG Telechat date: November 3rd, 2011

Summary:  This document is ready to be published as a proposed standard.

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None


Regards,

Wassim H.

___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

[Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-ospf-auth-trailer-ospfv3-09

[Wassim Haddad]

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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a 
new version of the draft.

Document:  draft-ietf-ospf-auth-trailer-ospfv3-09
Reviewer:  Wassim Haddad
Review Date: November 1st, 2011
IETF LC End Date: August 08, 2011
IESG Telechat date: November 03, 2011

Summary:  This document is almsot ready to be published as a proposed standard.

Major issues: None


Minor issues: 

- The draft mentions twice "MANETs" in the "abstract" and "introduction" 
sections without elaborating on that nor giving any reference specific to it.  
Since, MANETs has a set of routing protocols and in order to avoid confusion, 
some further clarification about OSPFv3 in that context would IMHO be helpful.


Regards,

Wassim H.

___
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-pim-port-09.txt

[Suresh Krishnan]

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-pim-port-09.txt
Reviewer: Suresh Krishnan
Review Date: 2011/11/01
IESG Telechat date: 2011/11/03

Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as an
Experimental RFC but I have a few comments.

Minor
=

Section 3.1

* From my reading of the document, it is not clear whether we can have a
node advertise multiple capability options of the same transport
protocol (say PIM-over-TCP-Capable) in the same message. e.g. A dual
stack node might want to advertise its capability to do both IPv4 and
IPv6. Is this possible? If so, how?

Section 4.7

* Section 4 talks about the router with the lower connection ID
initiating the transport layer connection but this does not really map
into the rules mentioned in Section 4.7. Specifically, I am not sure
Rule 3 for Node A in Section 4.7 conveys the same intent as section 4.

Thanks
Suresh


___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Now available - the Gen-ART review tool

[Ben Campbell]

I have mixed emotions on this one. I do a lot of reviews offline, so having to 
enter it into a form could be a pain. As it is, I just "send" the email, and my 
computer takes care of it when get back online. Also, I use my iPad for a lot 
of reviews, and most of the IETF tools that involve uploading content don't 
work from an iPad. I can paste into a text field, but I can't upload a 
file--which is the metaphor most of the other tools use.

OTOH, the "paste a URL" approach is error prone. The pasted URI has nothing to 
tell me I put in the right one. If I make a cut/paste error, I'm not likely to 
notice it. Maybe if the actual content was displayed after saving, I would have 
a chance to notice a problem and fix it.

On Nov 1, 2011, at 5:25 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:

> Okay. Personally, I would rather enter the review in a form and have the tool 
> do all the magic of sending it to the mailing list, related authors, etc.  
> I'm not sure if that is more difficult than this approach.  
> 
> Thanks,
> Mary. 
> 
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 4:19 PM, A. Jean Mahoney  wrote:
> Hi Mary,
> 
> Yes, reviewers need to enter the URLs manually.
> 
> When you have posted your review to the gen-art mailing list:
> 
>  o  Click the Done button for the document on the review tool.
>  o  Find your review on 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/maillist.html.
>  o  Paste the review's URL in the Review URL field.
>  o  Click the Save button.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jean
> 
> 
> On 11/1/11 4:04 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
> Jean,
> 
> Thanks for working with Henrik and Tero to get this done.
> 
> I have a question.  I see one of my assignments, but it is one that I already 
> reviewed.  If I click Done for the review, it seems I need to enter the URL 
> for the review.  Will we have to enter the URLs manually or will those be 
> populated by the tool?
> 
> Thanks,
> Mary.
> 
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 3:55 PM, A. Jean Mahoney  > wrote:
> 
>Hi all,
> 
>The Gen-ART review tool is ready to be tested.
> 
>Users of the review tool should have received automatically
>generated emails starting with "[genart review tool]".
> 
>Steps on accessing and working with the tool can be found here:
>http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/dav/genart/gen_art_review_tool_how-to.html
> 
>Please log in and check the My Info page for your user
>information, then check the My Queue page. Most reviewers should
>see one or more recent assignments, which are for documents
>currently in Last Call and/or on the November 3 Telechat. David,
>Elwyn, Kathleen, and Richard: your queues are empty for the moment.
> 
>If the assignment is unfamiliar to you, I've probably fumbled
>something. Please reject the assignment. Otherwise, accept the
>assignment.
> 
>As we're testing the tool, I'll continue to provide last call and
>telechat assignments in the traditional format. The gen-art.html
>page and the HTML assignment pages found on
>http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/dav/genart/ will continue to be the
>official method of recording and assigning reviews until otherwise
>noted.
> 
>Please let me know if you have trouble accessing the tool,
>questions on how it works, or any feedback. I'm collecting bugs
>and enhancement requests.
> 
>Thanks to Tero Kivinen and Henrik Levkowetz for creating and
>helping set up this tool!
> 
>Jean
>___
>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

___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Now available - the Gen-ART review tool

[Mary Barnes]

Okay. Personally, I would rather enter the review in a form and have the
tool do all the magic of sending it to the mailing list, related authors,
etc.  I'm not sure if that is more difficult than this approach.

Thanks,
Mary.

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 4:19 PM, A. Jean Mahoney  wrote:

> Hi Mary,
>
> Yes, reviewers need to enter the URLs manually.
>
> When you have posted your review to the gen-art mailing list:
>
>  o  Click the Done button for the document on the review tool.
>  o  Find your review on http://www.ietf.org/mail-**
> archive/web/gen-art/current/**maillist.html
> .
>  o  Paste the review's URL in the Review URL field.
>  o  Click the Save button.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jean
>
>
> On 11/1/11 4:04 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
>
>> Jean,
>>
>> Thanks for working with Henrik and Tero to get this done.
>>
>> I have a question.  I see one of my assignments, but it is one that I
>> already reviewed.  If I click Done for the review, it seems I need to enter
>> the URL for the review.  Will we have to enter the URLs manually or will
>> those be populated by the tool?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mary.
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 3:55 PM, A. Jean Mahoney > maho...@nostrum.com>> wrote:
>>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>The Gen-ART review tool is ready to be tested.
>>
>>Users of the review tool should have received automatically
>>generated emails starting with "[genart review tool]".
>>
>>Steps on accessing and working with the tool can be found here:
>>http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/**dav/genart/gen_art_review_**
>> tool_how-to.html
>>
>>Please log in and check the My Info page for your user
>>information, then check the My Queue page. Most reviewers should
>>see one or more recent assignments, which are for documents
>>currently in Last Call and/or on the November 3 Telechat. David,
>>Elwyn, Kathleen, and Richard: your queues are empty for the moment.
>>
>>If the assignment is unfamiliar to you, I've probably fumbled
>>something. Please reject the assignment. Otherwise, accept the
>>assignment.
>>
>>As we're testing the tool, I'll continue to provide last call and
>>telechat assignments in the traditional format. The gen-art.html
>>page and the HTML assignment pages found on
>>
>> http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/**dav/genart/will
>>  continue to be the
>>official method of recording and assigning reviews until otherwise
>>noted.
>>
>>Please let me know if you have trouble accessing the tool,
>>questions on how it works, or any feedback. I'm collecting bugs
>>and enhancement requests.
>>
>>Thanks to Tero Kivinen and Henrik Levkowetz for creating and
>>helping set up this tool!
>>
>>Jean
>>__**_
>>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

Re: [Gen-art] Now available - the Gen-ART review tool

[Mary Barnes]

Jean,

Thanks for working with Henrik and Tero to get this done.

I have a question.  I see one of my assignments, but it is one that I
already reviewed.  If I click Done for the review, it seems I need to enter
the URL for the review.  Will we have to enter the URLs manually or will
those be populated by the tool?

Thanks,
Mary.

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 3:55 PM, A. Jean Mahoney  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The Gen-ART review tool is ready to be tested.
>
> Users of the review tool should have received automatically generated
> emails starting with "[genart review tool]".
>
> Steps on accessing and working with the tool can be found here:
> http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/**dav/genart/gen_art_review_**tool_how-to.html
>
> Please log in and check the My Info page for your user information, then
> check the My Queue page. Most reviewers should see one or more recent
> assignments, which are for documents currently in Last Call and/or on the
> November 3 Telechat. David, Elwyn, Kathleen, and Richard: your queues are
> empty for the moment.
>
> If the assignment is unfamiliar to you, I've probably fumbled something.
> Please reject the assignment. Otherwise, accept the assignment.
>
> As we're testing the tool, I'll continue to provide last call and telechat
> assignments in the traditional format. The gen-art.html page and the HTML
> assignment pages found on 
> http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/**dav/genart/will
>  continue to be the official method of recording and assigning reviews
> until otherwise noted.
>
> Please let me know if you have trouble accessing the tool, questions on
> how it works, or any feedback. I'm collecting bugs and enhancement requests.
>
> Thanks to Tero Kivinen and Henrik Levkowetz for creating and helping set
> up this tool!
>
> Jean
> __**_
> 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

Re: [Gen-art] Now available - the Gen-ART review tool

[A. Jean Mahoney]

Hi Mary,

Yes, reviewers need to enter the URLs manually.

When you have posted your review to the gen-art mailing list:

 o  Click the Done button for the document on the review tool.
 o  Find your review on 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/maillist.html.

 o  Paste the review's URL in the Review URL field.
 o  Click the Save button.

Thanks,

Jean

On 11/1/11 4:04 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:

Jean,

Thanks for working with Henrik and Tero to get this done.

I have a question.  I see one of my assignments, but it is one that I 
already reviewed.  If I click Done for the review, it seems I need to 
enter the URL for the review.  Will we have to enter the URLs manually 
or will those be populated by the tool?


Thanks,
Mary.

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 3:55 PM, A. Jean Mahoney > wrote:


Hi all,

The Gen-ART review tool is ready to be tested.

Users of the review tool should have received automatically
generated emails starting with "[genart review tool]".

Steps on accessing and working with the tool can be found here:
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/dav/genart/gen_art_review_tool_how-to.html

Please log in and check the My Info page for your user
information, then check the My Queue page. Most reviewers should
see one or more recent assignments, which are for documents
currently in Last Call and/or on the November 3 Telechat. David,
Elwyn, Kathleen, and Richard: your queues are empty for the moment.

If the assignment is unfamiliar to you, I've probably fumbled
something. Please reject the assignment. Otherwise, accept the
assignment.

As we're testing the tool, I'll continue to provide last call and
telechat assignments in the traditional format. The gen-art.html
page and the HTML assignment pages found on
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/dav/genart/ will continue to be the
official method of recording and assigning reviews until otherwise
noted.

Please let me know if you have trouble accessing the tool,
questions on how it works, or any feedback. I'm collecting bugs
and enhancement requests.

Thanks to Tero Kivinen and Henrik Levkowetz for creating and
helping set up this tool!

Jean
___
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

[Gen-art] Now available - the Gen-ART review tool

[A. Jean Mahoney]

Hi all,

The Gen-ART review tool is ready to be tested.

Users of the review tool should have received automatically generated 
emails starting with "[genart review tool]".


Steps on accessing and working with the tool can be found here:
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/dav/genart/gen_art_review_tool_how-to.html

Please log in and check the My Info page for your user information, then 
check the My Queue page. Most reviewers should see one or more recent 
assignments, which are for documents currently in Last Call and/or on 
the November 3 Telechat. David, Elwyn, Kathleen, and Richard: your 
queues are empty for the moment.


If the assignment is unfamiliar to you, I've probably fumbled something. 
Please reject the assignment. Otherwise, accept the assignment.


As we're testing the tool, I'll continue to provide last call and 
telechat assignments in the traditional format. The gen-art.html page 
and the HTML assignment pages found on 
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/dav/genart/ will continue to be the official 
method of recording and assigning reviews until otherwise noted.


Please let me know if you have trouble accessing the tool, questions on 
how it works, or any feedback. I'm collecting bugs and enhancement 
requests.


Thanks to Tero Kivinen and Henrik Levkowetz for creating and helping set 
up this tool!


Jean
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

[Gen-art] Gen-ART Combined Last Call and Telechat Review of draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc1948bis-01

[Ben Campbell]

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 wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc1948bis-01
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-01-01
IETF LC End Date: 2011-01-02
IESG Telechat date: 2011-01-03

Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication as a proposed standard. 
I have a couple of minor comments and nits that might be worth considering, but 
probably shouldn't block anything.

Major issues:

None

Minor issues:

-- section 3, paragraph after ISN formula: "It is vital that F not be 
computable…"

If it's vital for security reasons, it seems like this would be worthy of 
normative language.

-- Normative reference to RFC1321

This is a normative downref. It's a reasonable downref  (maybe even the 
canonical reasonable downref). I call it out for the sake of completeness.

-- Appendix B, Removal of "A Common TCP Bug" section:

Can you comment on why the section was removed?


Nits/editorial comments:

-- abstract

The abstract should explicitly mention the update to RFC793

-- section 1, 2nd paragraph:

Please expand ISN on first mention

-- informative references:

Is there any way to avoid orphaning the last reference fragment? It's confusing 
to find half a reference at the top of the next page.


___
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-cuss-sip-uui-reqs-07

[Ben Campbell]

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 wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-reqs-07
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-01-01
IESG Telechat date: 2011-01-03

Summary:

This version is basically ready for publication as an informational RFC. Alan 
responded to two of my comments with perfectly reasonable explanations (see 
quoted text below.) In both cases, I think the requirements would be more clear 
if the clarifications were included in the draft text:


>> 
>> 
>> -- REQ-12: 
>> 
>> What degree of certainty is required here? (i.e. strong identity?) If 
>> implied by the SIP dialog, does that impact expectations on what sort of 
>> authn must happen at the SIP layer?
> 
> This is not meant to imply strong identity.  And since UUI data can appear in 
> a response, there aren't really any strong methods available with SIP.   The 
> UUI mechanism does not introduce stronger authorization requirements for SIP, 
> but instead the mechanism needs to be able to utilize existing SIP approaches.
> 
>> 
>> -- REQ 13:
>> 
>> I'm not sure I understand how this interacts with the ability for 
>> intermediaries to remove UUI. Should this be detectable by the endpoints? Or 
>> is that ability limited to the hop-by-hop case, or require no integrity 
>> protection?
> 
> Yes, there are tradeoffs between this requirement and requirement REQ-9.  
> Hop-by-hop protection is one way to resolve this interaction.




___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-reqs-06

[Ben Campbell]

Hi Alan,

That resolves all my concerns. However, it might be helpful to include the two 
following explanations in the draft text.

Thanks!

Ben.

On Oct 27, 2011, at 10:53 AM, Alan Johnston wrote:

[…]


>> 
>> 
>> -- REQ-12: 
>> 
>> What degree of certainty is required here? (i.e. strong identity?) If 
>> implied by the SIP dialog, does that impact expectations on what sort of 
>> authn must happen at the SIP layer?
> 
> This is not meant to imply strong identity.  And since UUI data can appear in 
> a response, there aren't really any strong methods available with SIP.   The 
> UUI mechanism does not introduce stronger authorization requirements for SIP, 
> but instead the mechanism needs to be able to utilize existing SIP approaches.
> 
>> 
>> -- REQ 13:
>> 
>> I'm not sure I understand how this interacts with the ability for 
>> intermediaries to remove UUI. Should this be detectable by the endpoints? Or 
>> is that ability limited to the hop-by-hop case, or require no integrity 
>> protection?
> 
> Yes, there are tradeoffs between this requirement and requirement REQ-9.  
> Hop-by-hop protection is one way to resolve this interaction.

[…]
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-tcp-15

[Vijay K. Gurbani]

On 10/31/2011 06:10 PM, Ari Keränen wrote:

- S1: The draft says, "This specification does so by following the
outline of ICE itself, and calling out the additions and changes
necessary in each section of ICE to support TCP candidates."

Does this imply that this specification normatively updates
rfc5425 (the ICE RFC)? If so, this is not reflected in the
masthead for the document as "Updates: RFC 5425".


Actually no. These additions are specific to TCP so the (UDP) ICE RFC is
not updated. In an effort to keep this draft reasonably compact, only
the delta from the RFC5245 is defined. So, when something is not defined
here, the behavior defined in RFC5245 is assumed.


Ari: Thanks for the clarification.  In that case, I would think that
inserting some text to the document fashioned along what you write
above will help those folks who would read your document and assume
normative changes to rfc5425.

A small change such as this will suffice (please feel free to edit):

OLD:
  This specification does so by following the outline of ICE itself,
  and calling out the additions and changes necessary in each section
  of ICE to support TCP candidates.

NEW:
  This specification does so by following the outline of ICE itself,
  and calling out the additions and changes necessary to support TCP
  candidates in ICE.  The base behaviour of ICE [RFC5245] remains
  unchanged except for the extensions in this document that define the
  usage of ICE with TCP candidates.

One more comments; please see below.


- S4.1, last paragraph. It says that, "TCP-based STUN transactions
are paced out at one every Ta seconds." However, rfc5245 Section
16 says that, "These transactions are paced at a rate of one
every Ta millisecond, ..."

I suspect that in your draft, Ta refers to the same Ta as in
rfc5245, so it seems to me that they should be paced one every
Ta milliseconds to conform to rfc5245, no?


This one is a bit tricky since even RFC5245 is not consistent with this
(e.g., section 5.8. of RFC5245 says "Ta seconds later", and section
16.1. is even more vague). We chose to use "seconds" so that the
formulas in 16.1. of 5245 would have right units, but actually in the
text 5245 does use "milliseconds" more often. I'm fine either way but
since you found this confusing, probably the milliseconds is a better
choice.


I believe that ms is what is intended (but the author of rfc5245 can
always be asked for a clarification).  Here's my reasoning:

The formulas of Section 16.1 are stated in terms of ms; i.e.,
Ta = MAX(20ms, 1/sum_{i=1}^k (1/Ta_i)).  To get an authoritative answer
from the MAX() function would require both parameters to be the
same units.  That is, MAX(20, 3) is rather ambiguous if the first
parameter is in terms of ms and the second in terms of second.
On the other hand, MAX(20, 3000) is straightforward to evaluate
since both parameters are in terms of ms.

Thanks,

- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / vijay.gurb...@alcatel-lucent.com
Web:   http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art