[Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis-10

[Ralph Droms]

Reviewer: Ralph Droms
Review result: Ready

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

.

Document: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis-10
Reviewer: Ralph Droms
Review Date: 2017-02-23
IETF LC End Date: 2017-02-07
IESG Telechat date: 2017-03-02

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments: None


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

[Gen-art] Review Assignments

[Jean Mahoney]

Hi all,

The following reviewers have assignments:

For telechat 2017-03-02

Reviewer   Type  LC end Draft
Ralph DromsTelechat  2017-02-07 draft-ietf-nfsv4-rfc5666bis-10 *
Francis Dupont Last Call 2017-02-24 draft-kivinen-802-15-ie-05 *
Fernando Gont  Last Call 2017-02-27 draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-20
Orit Levin Last Call 2017-01-31 draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol-07
Meral Shirazipour  Telechat  2017-02-07 
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-bidirection-07 *
Meral Shirazipour  Telechat  2017-02-10 draft-ietf-dmm-hnprenum-06 *
Robert Sparks  Telechat  2017-01-17 draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time-14 *
Peter Yee  Last Call 2017-03-01 draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08

For telechat 2017-03-16

Reviewer   Type  LC end Draft
Stewart Bryant Telechat  2017-01-30 draft-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses-06 *
Stewart Bryant Last Call 2017-03-03 
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm-12
Brian CarpenterLast Call 2017-03-06 
draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption-10
Elwyn Davies   Last Call 2017-03-07 draft-ietf-jsonbis-rfc7159bis-03
Roni Even  Last Call 2017-03-01 draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-12
Fernando Gont  Last Call 2017-01-23 draft-ietf-dime-agent-overload-09
Vijay Gurbani  Last Call 2017-03-08 draft-ietf-lmap-yang-11
Christer Holmberg  Last Call 2017-02-28 
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-08
Russ Housley   Last Call 2017-03-08 draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-17
Paul Kyzivat   Last Call 2017-03-10 draft-bchv-rfc6890bis-04
Matthew Miller Last Call 2017-03-13 draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-07
Dale WorleyLast Call 2017-03-03 draft-ietf-dane-smime-15
Lucy Yong  Last Call 2017-03-03 draft-ietf-tls-rfc4492bis-12

Last calls:

Reviewer   Type  LC end Draft
Francis Dupont Last Call 2017-02-24 
draft-ietf-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-03
Joel Halpern   Last Call 2017-03-02 draft-ietf-anima-grasp-09
Orit Levin Last Call 2017-03-02 
draft-ietf-dprive-dtls-and-tls-profiles-08
Lucy Yong  Last Call 2017-01-30 
draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-09

* Other revision previously reviewed
** This revision already reviewed

Next in the reviewer rotation:

  Joel Halpern
  Christer Holmberg
  Russ Housley
  Jouni Korhonen
  Paul Kyzivat
  Orit Levin
  Matthew Miller
  Pete Resnick
  Dan Romascanu
  Meral Shirazipour

The LC and Telechat review templates are included below:
---

-- Begin LC Template --
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

.

Document:
Reviewer:
Review Date:
IETF LC End Date:
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary:

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments: 

-- End LC Template --

-- Begin Telechat Template --
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

.

Document:
Reviewer:
Review Date:
IETF LC End Date:
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary:

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

-- End Telechat Template --


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

Re: [Gen-art] [Slim] Review of draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language-06

[Randall Gellens]

At 10:34 AM -0500 2/23/17, Dale R. Worley wrote:


 Randall Gellens  writes:

 Thanks, Dale.  It seems that it would be useful
 for the draft to suggest (not require) that a
 session rejected due to lack of
 mutually-supported languages use 488 or 606, and
 also include a Warning header field with the
 suggested 308 code that the draft would register.


 It seems to me that specifying how to reject the call is one of those
 "SHOULD" things.  Of course, the document would have to register 308 as
 a warn-code.


The update I posted yesterday does register a new warn-code.  I'm not 
sure we need to use SHOULD instead of explicit advice for the SIP 
response code.  I doubt implementers would ignore the explicit advice 
yet would honor a SHOULD.


--
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only
-- Randomly selected tag: ---
An elephant is a mouse with an operating system.

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

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc5987bis-04

[Stewart Bryant]

Obsoletes: RFC5987 (if approved) ("RFC" missing)


No. See .



I beg your pardon :(

In all these years of reading RFCs I had not noticed that and always 
assumed it was the other way about.


Says something about my cognitive process.

BR

Stewart

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

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc5987bis-04

[Julian Reschke]

Hi Stewart,

thanks a lot.

> ...

Nits/editorial comments:

Should say

Obsoletes: RFC5987 (if approved) ("RFC" missing)


No. See .


Extended notation, using the Unicode characters U+00A3 ("£", POUND
SIGN) and U+20AC ("€", EURO SIGN):

My European computer can display £ and €, but not sure if all can or
whether the RFC series supports these symbols. There symbols were not
present in RFC5987, they were just named.


Yes, that's intentional.

The new RFC format (see RFC 7990 etc) allows the use of non-ASCII 
characters for things like I18N related examples and contact 
information, and that's exactly how it is used here.


Best regards, Julian

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

[Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc5987bis-04

[Stewart Bryant]

Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
Review result: Ready

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

.

Document: draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc5987bis-??
Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
Review Date: 2017-02-23
IETF LC End Date: 2017-02-20
IESG Telechat date: 2017-03-02

Summary: 

Thus is ready for publication. There are two minor nits, but these can
be delegated to the RFC Editor.

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments: 

Should say

Obsoletes: RFC5987 (if approved) ("RFC" missing)

Extended notation, using the Unicode characters U+00A3 ("£", POUND
SIGN) and U+20AC ("€", EURO SIGN):

My European computer can display £ and €, but not sure if all can or
whether the RFC series supports these symbols. There symbols were not
present in RFC5987, they were just named.

FYI
Nits complains about obsoleting RFC2231 can be ignored
The nits complaint about RFC2616 can be ignored
The nits complaint about RFC2978 cab be ignored


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

[Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-dime-load-07

[Roni Even]

Reviewer: Roni Even
Review result: Ready with Nits

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

.

Document: draft-ietf-dime-load-07
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2017-02-23
IETF LC End Date: 2017-02-27
IESG Telechat date: 2017-03-16

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standard
track RFC

Major issues:

Minor issues:

I understand that each node can calculate the load differently , the
example in figure 8 demonstrate that the agent selection may be
different if the agent aggregates load from the servers to calculate
its load or just conveys his load, possibly even that each one of the
agents will use different method. Why not mandate load calculation
using aggregated weighted loads? 

Nits/editorial comments: 
1. In section 5 paragraph 9 "The load report includes a value
indicating the load of the sending
   node relative load of the sending node, " should be just "The load
report includes a value indicating the relative load of the sending
node,"
2. In section 6.2 "weigth "
3. in the security consideration what about an endpoint in the middle
changing the host load value causing a change in the routing
decisions. 




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