Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat Review of draft-yusef-dispatch-ccmp-indication-06
Thanks Ben. We'll fix these nits in the next version. Mary. On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Ben Campbell b...@nostrum.com 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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-yusef-dispatch-ccmp-indication-06 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2013-10-08 IESG Telechat date: 2013-10-10 Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an informational RFC. This version addresses all the comments from my last call review of version 04. I do have a couple of new (or I missed the first time) editorial comments that might be worth addressing if there is a new version prior to approval. Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: -- General: idnits 2.12.18 reports some missing references--please check. -- Abstract and Intro Please expand UA and XCON on first mention (Both in Abstract and in Section 1). ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
[Gen-art] Fwd: FW: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-yusef-dispatch-ccmp-indication-04
Hi Ben, I apologize for the delay in responding. I had initially missed this review - it either got cached directly with gen-art reviews or the tools alias burped. I'm not on the main IETF list with this email address. Anyways, thank you very much for your thorough review. Our responses are below [MB]. We have an update underway that addresses your's and other's LC comments. We can forward that to you to preview if you would like. Regards, Mary. -Original Message- From: Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@nostrum.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 6:52 PM To: draft-yusef-dispatch-ccmp-indication@tools.ietf.org Cc: gen-art@ietf.org Team; IETF-Discussion list Subject: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-yusef-dispatch-ccmp-indication-04 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-yusef-dispatch-ccmp-indication-04 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2013-07-16 IETF LC End Date: 2013-07-16 Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard, but I think there are some clarifications needed first. Major issues: -- None Minor issues: -- Abstract: Is the abstract current? It says you will discuss pros and cons of a few options, and recommend two. I guess you did recommend two, but the others have been relegated to the appendix. There are no pros and cons listed for the two recommended choices, which seems rather odd. [MB] You are correct, it's slightly out of date. We should just update this to reflect that this document defines two mechanisms. And, we'll add additional text to the selected solutions explaining the motivation for choosing those. So, we suggest the following change (also removing the references as this document actually doesn't update any normative behavior in either 3261 or 4575): OLD: This document describes a few options to address the above limitation with the pros and cons for each approach, and recommends two to be used depending on the need of the UA. The first approach uses the Call-Info header and as a result this document updates RFC 3261 [RFC3261]. The second approach defines a new value for the 'purpose' parameter in the 'service-uris' element in the SIP conferencing event package, and as a result this document updates RFC 4575 [RFC4575]. NEW: This document describes two mechanisms, depending upon the need of the UA, to address the above limitation. The first mechanism uses the Call-Info header, and the second mechanism defines a new value for the 'purpose' parameter in the 'service-uris' element in the SIP conferencing event package. [/MB] It also mentions that these are mechanisms to be used by SIP clients. That's not repeated in the introduction. Is this entire draft intended exclusively for SIP clients? [MB] We can fix that. The intent is for SIP clients to use this, in particular since the Call-Info header is SIP specific. The service-uri that is being used could also be in the XCON-Data. But, there would be no reason for an XCON client to care about that URI since they are using XCON methods to create conferences, the URI they have for communicating with the conference server MUST be an XCON URI. We propose adding text to the Intro something like the following: OLD: The CCMP protocol defines a way for a client to determine if a conference control server supports CCMP, but it does not define a way for a client to determine if a conference focus supports CCMP. This document defines two mechanisms to address the above limitation. Other mechanisms that we considered are listed in Appendix A. NEW: The CCMP defines a way for an XCON-aware client to discover whether a conference control server supports CCMP. However, it does not define a way for a SIP client involved in a conference to determine if the conference focus [RFC4353] supports CCMP. Knowing that a focus supports CCMP would allow a SIP client (that is also XCON-aware) that joins a conference using SIP based conferencing [RFC4579] to also register for the XCON conference event package [RFC6502] and take advantage of CCMP operations on the conference. This document describes two options to address the above limitation, depending on the need of the UA. The first option uses the Call-Info [RFC3261] header, and the second option defines a new value for the 'purpose' parameter in the 'service-uris' element in the SIP conferencing event package [RFC4575]. Other options considered are described in Appendix A. [/MB] -- 2. It would be helpful to give more guidance on when one would use one method over the other. 2.1 mentions that it might be an easier way for a UA that is not interested in the URI. [MB] Would the following address this concern? OLD: This section defines the mechanisms that can be use to discover that a focus supports CCMP. NEW: This section
Re: [Gen-art] timing of reviews
I will caveat my comments with the fact that I am no longer taking on new documents for review. However, having been involved in the process for 10 years now on the gen-art side and having done the reviews for 3 IETF chairs, and having much experience as a chair and document editor, I do have some concerns as laid out below. Mary. On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote: I think time will tell whether it's small. Getting into the thick of WG discussion in an area one doesn't know well can be quite a shock to the system. That's not to say we shouldn't try it, but I would ask for it to be a time-limited experiment initially. Yes - or scope limited (only some WGs or areas at the beginning). [MB] Absolutely, it needs to have a limited scope initially. As Brian said, the concept is not new, it's just that few took advantage of it. I would prefer that this stage remain optimal and up to the WG chairs as to whether it's necessary. Without the tool support that is available for the regular LC and Telechat reviews, I don't think we want to burden Jean too much until we have a very good idea of the level of effort and until there is tool support (e.g., chairs enter the docs into a tool that gets the doc into Jean's incoming queue for assignment). I also believe this increases the burden on the reviewers significantly more than the burden when we added the LC reviews. For folks that haven't been around a while, the original Gen-ART process only did reviews prior to the telechats. Adding reviews at LC did increase the workload for reviewers, however, we did see a somewhat increase in documents ready at Telechat time. [/MB] It seems important to inform WGs explicitly that outside review is taking place *and* has to be taken seriously (because if not, the same reviewer will be back at a later stage with the same questions).' Good point. [MB] Exactly. [/MB] [MB] My biggest concern is that many documents that go through WGLC in the WGs in which I am active are NOT ready at that stage. I also have seen in cases of Gen-ART reviews, that documents clearly weren't reviewed by the shepherd or ADs due to the level of editorial issues and technical (the p2psip reload document is a good example of this). There were concerns raised in the WG with regards to its readiness but it was still progressed. Certainly, I hope this is the exception. However, my guess is that many documents will change quite a bit after LC. When I chaired the SIPPING WG, we had multiple stages of review in the WG where we had assigned reviewers. We had an initial review when the doc was first accepted as a WG document, then we had a pre-WGLC review and then the real WGLC. Many of the documents went through a 2nd last call. If we could get more WGs to be more disciplined about ensuring that documents receive adequate review prior to WGLC, then this idea might work. At this point, I see very few WGs that have an effective process in place. One also has to consider that in some WGs (many that I participate in and write docs for), there are very often folks that don't review any version of a document in detail until it goes through WGLC. So, I am personally quite skeptical that this proposal adds significant value to the overall process, in particular based on the level of effort required by both the gen-art reviewers. I think this is just moving an existing problem around and asking the wrong set of folks to help solve the problem. I think a more effective change would be for ADs to expect WGs to ensure the docs are thoroughly reviewed earlier in the stage by the WG. [/MB] Then there is a question: will Gen-ART re-review at the time of IETF Last Call as well as when the draft reaches the IESG agenda? My initial though was that we'd do the same as we do today for drafts that change, i.e., re-review by the same person. The likelihood for draft changes is of course bigger when starting from the WGLC. Another possible work load increase to watch for. I'd be interested in your thoughts on other approaches to deal with re-reviews though. Jari ___ 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] Fwd: Gen-ART Review: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-atomic-fragments-03
Oops, I just looked and I forget to send this to gen-art. Mary. -- Forwarded message -- From: Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com Date: Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:09 AM Subject: Gen-ART Review: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-atomic-fragments-03 To: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-atomic-fragments@tools.ietf.org Sorry for the delay. 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. Document: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-atomic-fragments-03 Reviewer: Mary Barnes Review Date: 24 Jan 2013 IETF LC End Date: 16 Jan 2013 Summary: Ready. ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review: draft-ietf-p2psip-base-24
Certainly - but it's a pay now or a pay later unless you can convince Henning that he doesn't need to do his usual careful review of a document with his name. This suggestion is based on my experience with the XCON protocol document. The level of complexity and density of this specification is significantly higher than the XCON document. It will be a huge challenge for the RFC editor - I think even Alice would find it so. Having to deal with a potential large number of edits at that stage has the potential to break or changes things that were so carefully fixed. Regards, Mary. On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo gonzalo.camari...@ericsson.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, there is no way Henning is going to review this document in the next 24 hours. So, do whatever you need to do and I will talk with Henning later. Thanks, Gonzalo On 20/02/2013 5:14 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote: On 02/20/2013 06:20 AM, Brian Rosen wrote: I will contact Henning I was in the process yesterday evening of doing a review according to the link Mary send when Roland's review arrived, which basically killed any chance of doing that. So either Henning send me today a list of things to fix, or I'll do the review later, but that probably be after the IESG telechat. Brian On Feb 19, 2013, at 7:16 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin m...@petit-huguenin.org wrote: Thanks Mary. I start working on this immediately. On 02/19/2013 04:06 PM, Mary Barnes 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. Document: draft-ietf-p2psip-base-24 Reviewer: Mary Barnes Review Date: 19 February 2013 Previous Review Date (-23): 14 December 2012 Original Review Date (-17): 6 August 2011 IETF LC End Date: 22 July 2011 IETF 2nd LC End Date: 19 February 2013 Summary: Almost Ready. This version is in significantly better shape than the previous versions. Comments: = I reviewed against my review of the -23 up through section 6. I reviewed beyond section 6 of this version (section 5 of -17, section 6 of -23) against my comments on the -17, since I had not re-reviewed those against the -23. General: I still *strongly* recommend that you ensure Henning has reviewed this document *before* it gets into the RFC editor's queue. The last RFC I had published with Henning as a co-author had much more extensive changes suggested during AUTH 48 than I found acceptable. If all the co-authors have not reviewed and approved the draft before it goes into the RFC editor's queue, then the document should not go into the RFC editor's queue. He has fairly strict (and quite accurate) views on grammar and structure but it really isn't good to have so many changes go in at AUTH48 as there is a risk of introducing true technical bugs or changing something that was carefully crafted to achieve WG consensus: http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs/etc/writing-bugs.html Note, that there some are cases of incorrect grammar that I have not identified because I think the RFC editor can fix, however, Henning may have different views on this. Major: -- - [-17, section 10.5] Section 11.5, 3rd para: text uses the phrase it can note the Node-ID in the response and use this Node-ID to start sending requests. It's not clear whether the use of the Node-ID is a MAY or a MUST.[Note: Marc's response to this was that it's an open issue, but this should be clarified prior to publication]. Minor: -- - idnits identifies 5 errors (downrefs). I will note that in the PROTO write-up it was noted that those should likely be moved to Informative. - [-17] Section 1.2.1, 2nd paragraph: I don't understand the example as to why a single application requires multiple usages - i.e, why voicemail? Isn't the intent to say that an application might need to use both SIP and XMPP - i.e., you wouldn't define a usage for an application, would you? [While Cullen responded to this comment with an explanation, there was no change to clarify the text and Marc's response didn't help clarify my concern] - Section 3.3, 2nd paragraph after the capability bullet list, next to last sentence. There is at least an article missing from this sentence and it reads rather awkwardly. Perhaps changing to something like: OLD: If there is a failure on the reverse path caused by topology change since the request was sent, this will be handled by the end-to-end retransmission of the response as described in Section 6.2.1. NEW: Note that a failure on the reverse path caused by a topology change after the request was sent, will be handled by the end-to-end retransmission of the response as described in Section 6.2.1. - [-17] Section 3.3, last paragraph. Add a reference to 5.4.2.4 after RouteQuery method - Section 3.4, last paragraph, 3rd sentence
[Gen-art] Gen-ART: Re-review of draft-ietf-p2psip-base-23
Russ asked that I re-review the updated document. 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. Document: draft-ietf-p2psip-base-23 Reviewer: Mary Barnes Review Date: 14 December 2012 Re-Review started Date (-21): 28 March 2012 (was told a new version was coming out) Original Review Date (-17) : 6 August 2011 IETF LC End Date: 22 July 2011 Summary: Not Ready. I reviewed through section 6 of this version (section 5 of -17) against my comments on the -17 . Since many of my comments had not been addressed, I'm not going to take the time to re-review the remainder of the document. I also *strongly* recommend that you ensure Henning has reviewed this document *before* it gets into the RFC editor's queue. He has fairly strict (and quite accurate) views on grammar and structure but it really isn't good to have so many changes go in at AUTH48 as there is a risk of introducing true technical bugs or changing something that was carefully crafted to achieve WG consensus: http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs/etc/writing-bugs.html Comments: = I have reviewed my previous comments on this document -17 as compared to the -23. Comments from the -17 that remain are prefaced with [-17] Major: -- General: --[-17] The message names are used inconsistently. The IANA registry has the message codes all lower case. There are places in the examples and the body of the document where the _req part is missing, there is no _, the first letters are Upper case, etc. The messages are also used in a general sense - e.g., MUST perform an Attach, which should really be stated as MUST send an attach_req message). [-23] For the latter point, Cullen responded that this isn't really just talking about sending a message but rather performing a function that results in a message being sent. However, I still contend that there is inconsistency and the whole concept of an Attach function/process/whatever is not well defined. There are times when attached appears to be used purely as a verb rather than referring to the functionality, but it is not always clear. For example, the last two sentences in section 3.4: Instead, we use the Attach request to establish a connection. Attach uses ICE [RFC5245] to establish the connection. It is assumed that the reader is familiar with ICE. I will note that the only mention of Attach previously was in the definitions for Connection Table (Attach handshakes) and Routing Table (some peers will have Attached). The word Attach is used with the _req or the word request in places like the following in section 3.4 (1st sentence): There are two cases where Attach is not used. I have no idea really whether this means this Attach function/process is not needed or the message is not required to be sent. Major - detailed: - Section 3.4, last paragraph: Accepting Cullen's comment that this text is not normative, I'll let my first set of -17 comments on this one go. However, the following is still not clear to me: What is meant by the specified link set - is that referring to all the nearby peers or the peers+enough others? Or is this more clearly (and normatively) specified elsewhere, such that a reference could be added. - [-17 5.1.2] Section 6.1.2: -- Last paragraph (9) mixes normative text with in an example. The normative text needs to be separated from the example - e.g., split some of the sentences into the normative behavior and then the example. The example should be written in terms of what happens (which is what was done in the previous examples in this section and not what SHOULD, MAY or MUST happen). For example, this sentence: Node A MUST implement an algorithm that ensures that A returns a response to this request to node B with the destination list [B, Z, Y, X], provided that the node to which A forwards the request follows the same contract. should have a generic normative statement rather than saying Node A MUST. It should be something like: A node must implement an algorithm that ensures it returns a response …, then the same sentence can be a For example, Node A MUST… - [-17 5.3.2.1] Section 6.3.2.1: --1st paragraph: shouldn't this be normative? the configuration document has a sequence number... - the configuration document MUST contain a sequence number which MUST be monotonically increasing mod 65535 - [-17 5.3.2.2] -Section 6.3.2.2: --Paragraph after second structure, suggest the following changes: ---the generation counters should - the generation counters SHOULD ---An implementation could use.. - An implementation MAY use… ---the node confirms that the generation counter matches - the node MUST confirm that the generation counter matches ---If it does not match, it is silently dropped. - If it does not match, it MUST be silently dropped. - [-17 5.3.3.1] Section 6.3.3.1: --1st para: a request returns - a request MUST
[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review: draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-14
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. Document: draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-14 Reviewer: Mary Barnes Review Date: 14 Dec 2012 IETF LC End Date: 19 Dec 2012 Summary: Ready with comment/nits. Minor comments: References: - There is a normative downref to RFC 1321. Does this need to be a normative reference? Note, I could not find the shepherd write-up in the tracker to see if this had been noted and explained. Nits: - IDNITS identifies the following: - there are 15 instances of two long of lines - there is an obsolete reference to RFC 2236 (Obsoleted by RFC 3376) - there are a number of unused references that can likely be removed. - General: please add #s to all the figures - Section 4.1.3, 1st sentence: shouldn't relay services gateways be relay services gateway - Appendix A.1, 2nd paragraph: Section Section 5.3.6 - Section 5.3.6 ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
[Gen-art] Gen-ART review: draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option-07.txt
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-ietf-netext-pmipv6-sipto-option-07.txt Reviewer: Mary Barnes Review Date: 16 Nov 2012 IETF LC End Date: 26 Nov 2012 Summary: Almost Ready - comments/nits. Minor comments/nits: -- Section 1: - 2nd paragraph I don't quite understand the intent of this sentence: Example of such non-essential traffic is entirely a policy decision. I think you're trying to say that It's a policy decision as to which traffic an operator deems as non-essential. - 3rd paragraph I'm not quite sure what is it in the last clause in this sentence below. Is the it the mobile node or the access network? The it should be replaced with whichever for readability. Also, adding a , before the which might help as well. If there is proper prefix coloring marking in the Router Advertisement messages which allows the mobile node to identify the IPv6 prefix assigned from the local access network, it can choose to use an address from that prefix for IP traffic flows that require offload. Section 2: - 1st paragraph: abbreviations should be terms. - It also seems to me that this document doesn't need to define NAT unless the term is being used in a manner different from the usual meaning. I think a reference to RFC 2633 at the first usage of NAT would be sufficient. Section 3: - 1st paragraph - this sentence needs some fixes: OLD: It is possible, the NAT function is co-located with the mobile access gateway, or its located some where in the edge of the access network. NEW: It is possible for the NAT function to be co-located with the mobile access gateway or located somewhere in the edge of the access network. - 1st paragraph: collacted - co-located Section 3.2: - 1st sub-bullet in the second bullet. I'm not sure what this is trying to say. Maybe the following change would help. OLD: Including the IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option in the Proxy Binding Update, but without the Traffic Selector Sub-option serves as an indication that the mobile access gateway is not proposing any specific offload policy for that mobility session, but a request to the local mobility anchor to provide the IPv4 traffic offload flow selectors for that mobility session. NEW: Including the IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option in the Proxy Binding Update without the Traffic Selector Sub-option serves as an indication that the mobile access gateway is not proposing any specific offload policy for that mobility session, but rather it indicates a request to the local mobility anchor to provide the IPv4 traffic offload flow selectors for that mobility session. - 2nd sub-bullet in the second bullet, 3rd sentence. I'm not sure what In that scenario is referring to in this sentence: In that scenario, the Traffic Selector sub-option MUST be present in the IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option (Section 4). The previous sentence talks about two ways in which the policy may be configured. Is it referring to one of those specific ways or is it referring to the 1st sentence - i.e., In the case that the MAG includes its proposed policy? - 3rd bullet, 1st sentence - not clear. Does the following reflect the intent? OLD: If there is no IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option in the corresponding Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message, that the mobile access gateway receives in response to a Proxy Binding Update, it serves as an indication that the local mobility anchor did not enable IPv4 Traffic Offload support for that mobility session, and hence the local mobility anchor did not deliver IPv4 flow selectors for that mobility session. NEW: Lack of a IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option in the corresponding Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message received by the mobile access gateway in response to a Proxy Binding Update indicates that the local mobility anchor did not enable IPv4 Traffic Offload support for that mobility session, and hence the local mobility anchor did not deliver IPv4 flow selectors for that mobility session. 5th bullet: This one very long sentence needs some work for clarity with one suggestion below (if I've interpreted the intent correctly): OLD: If configuration variable, EnableIPTrafficOffloadSupport is set to a value of (0), and if the mobile access gateway has not included the IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option in the Proxy Binding Update, but if the received Proxy Binding Acknowledgement message has the IPv4 Traffic Offload Selector option
[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ted-mib-14
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. Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ted-mib-14 Reviewer: Mary Barnes Review Date: 17 Oct 2012 IETF LC End Date: 19 Oct 2012 IESG Telechat Date: 25 Oct 2012 Summary: Ready. Caveat: I am not a MIB expert and assume that the mib doctor review has ensured that aspect of the document is correct. Nits: - - there are a number of unused references that can likely be removed. ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
[Gen-art] Gen-ART Review: draft-ietf-krb-wg-kerberos-referrals-14
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. Document: draft-ietf-krb-wg-kerberos-referrals-14 Reviewer: Mary Barnes Review Date: 23 Sept 2012 IETF LC End Date: 26 Sept 2012 IETF Telechat Date: 27 Sept. 2012 Summary: Ready with question/nits. Minor Issue: Section 11, next to last paragraph, last sentence: The value for this padata item should be empty. Is this really a should or is a MUST more appropriate? If it's a should then the cases whereby the item is not empty appropriate should be defined. Nits: Section 6: - 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: maintain ta set of aliases - maintain a set of aliases. - 4th paragraph. I would suggest to remove the parenthesis - no reason for that statement not to be part of the main body of the previous paragraph. Section 11: - Paragraph after the schema: The The - The Section 13.1: - 1st paragraph: previously send by the KDC - previously sent by the KDC ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review for draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis-09.txt
Hi Dan, Thanks for your careful review. We will fix the nits in the next version. I have some comments and new proposed for the minor issue below. Mary On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) droma...@avaya.comwrote: 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-sipcore-rfc4244bis-09.txt Reviewer: Dan Romascanu Review Date: 9/13/2012 IETF LC End Date: 9/20/2012 IESG Telechat date: Summary: The document is ready for publication. There is one minor issue that could benefit from clarifications and a few nits worth cleaning up. Major issues: Minor issues: 1. Last paragraph in 16.1: In cases where an entity that is compliant to this document, receives a request that contains hi-entries compliant only to RFC4244 (i.e, the hi-entries do not contain any of the new header field parameters), the entity should not make any changes to the hi-entries - i.e., the entries should be cached and forwarded as any other entries are. As with RFC4244 compliant entities, applications must be able to function in cases of missing information. The same applies to this document as specified in Section 11. I am a little confused by the language used here. It's OK if it is not capitalized if the functionality is described someplace else. However, why ' should not make any changes to the hi-entries' and ' the entries should be cached and forwarded '? Are there any exception cases that prevent writing just 'does not make any changes' and 'the entries are cached and forwarded'? [MB] The intent was to state that the entity MUST NOT add any of the new header parameter values to the hi-entry to make it look like a 4244bis hi-entry. But, rather the hi-entry is processed in the exact same manner as 4244bis compliant entries. I think we do need normative behavior as I don't think we have specified the behavior for this scenario elsewhere. [/MB] Also - I did not understand to what the last sentence refers (the same applies to this document...) [MB] It was trying to refer to section 11 which specifies that applications must be able to function in cases of missing information. Really, we could probably just delete that sentence and add the section 11 reference to the previous sentence. [/MB] [MB] Based on my comments above, I would propose the following rewording for that text: In cases where an entity that is compliant to this document, receives a request that contains hi-entries compliant only to RFC4244 (i.e, the hi-entries do not contain any of the new header field parameters), the entity MUST NOT add any of the new header field parameters to the hi-entries. The hi-entries MUST be cached and forwarded as any other entries are as specified in section 9.1. As with RFC4244 compliant entities, applications must be able to function in cases of missing information, as specified in Section 11. [/MB] Nits/editorial comments: 1. In the IANA Considerations section - add a note to the RFC Editor that requires that in [RFC xxx] be replaced with the RFC number allocated for this document. 2. [RFC3969] is unused. 3. In Section 2, 3rd paragraph s/are used consistent/ are used consistently/ 4. In section 4: This specification also defines three new SIP header field parameters, rc, mp and np, for the History-Info and Contact header fields, to tag the method by which the target of a request is determined. Further detail on the use of these header field parameters is provided in Section 10.4. Actually the parameters rc, mp and np are defined in section 5. 5. The readability of the document could be improved by adding a short terminology and abbreviations section or by expanding terms and acronyms at first occurrence (e.g. UAC, SWS, B2BUA) ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC and telechat review: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc4641bis-12
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. Document: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc4641bis-12 Reviewer: Mary Barnes Review Date: 24 Aug 2012 IETF LC End Date: 24 Aug 2012 IESG Telechat Date: 30 Aug 2012 Summary: Ready with nits. Caveat: I have no expertise at all in this technical area, thus I'm assuming that people who are have carefully reviewed. Overall, the document is quite readable. Minor issues: -- Section 2: - 3rd para, last sentence is not clear - this phrase in particular doesn't grok: if you rely on full zone transfers are based I think you are trying to say the following: OLD: It increases even more if you rely on full zone transfers are based on only the SOA timing parameters for refresh. NEW: It increases even more if you rely on the full zone transfers being based only on the SOA timing parameters for refresh. Nits: - Section 3.2.3: i.e they - i.e., they - Section 4.2.1.1, last sentence: authentic - authenticate - Section 4.2.1.2, 2nd para, last sentence: possesion - possession - Section 4.2.4: 1st bullet: curren - currently - Section 4.3.3: non-existing - non-existant - Section 4.3.5.2: -- redelegation - re-delegation (2 places) -- undelegated - un-delegated (2nd bullet) -- registers - registrars (3rd bullet) - Section 4.4.1: -- 2nd bullet: minumum - minimum -- 3rd from last indented bullet: signatures times out - signatures time out - Section 5.3.3, 1st para, last sentence: precalculated - pre-calculated ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
[Gen-art] Fwd: Gen-ART Review:draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-gtsm-08.txt
Oops - forgot to cc gen-art. -- Forwarded message -- From: Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com Date: Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 5:34 PM Subject: Gen-ART Review:draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-gtsm-08.txt To: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-gtsm@tools.ietf.org 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. Document: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-gtsm-08.txt Reviewer: Mary Barnes Review Date: 4 June 2012 IETF LC End Date: 29 May 2012 IESG Telechat Date: 07 June 2012 Summary: Ready with minor nits Editorial nits: 1) Section 1: - 2nd para, last sentence: This sentence doesn't quite parse - it's not normative, so it should either be deleted or reworded. I suggest deleting as I think it's somewhat superfluous. - Next to last paragraph - last three sentences - a little verbose somewhat redundant. I think it can be summarized something like the following: OLD: This document specifies a built-in dynamic GTSM capability negotiation for LDP to suggest the use of GTSM. GTSM will be used as specified in this document provided both peers on an LDP session can detect each others' support for GTSM procedures and agree to use it. That is, the desire to use GTSM (i.e., its negotiation mechanics) is enabled by default without any configuration. NEW: This document specifies a dynamic GTSM capability negotiation mechanism for LDP. This mechanism allows both peers on an LDP session to indicate the support and use of GTSM without requiring any configuration. 2) Section 2.2, 1st para, last sentence: and RECOMMENDED - and are RECOMMENDED ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
[Gen-art] Fwd: Gen-ART Review:draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-gtsm-08.txt
And, the response didn't make it either, of course. -- Forwarded message -- From: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) cpign...@cisco.com Date: Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 8:11 PM Subject: Re: Gen-ART Review:draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-gtsm-08.txt To: Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-gtsm@tools.ietf.org draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-gtsm@tools.ietf.org Mary, Many thanks for the review! Much appreciated -- please see inline: On Jun 4, 2012, at 6:34 PM, Mary Barnes 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. Document: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-gtsm-08.txt Reviewer: Mary Barnes Review Date: 4 June 2012 IETF LC End Date: 29 May 2012 IESG Telechat Date: 07 June 2012 Summary: Ready with minor nits Editorial nits: 1) Section 1: - 2nd para, last sentence: This sentence doesn't quite parse - it's not normative, so it should either be deleted or reworded. I suggest deleting as I think it's somewhat superfluous. Agreed E_PARSE. I recommend we do not delete because it introduces the concept that this is for Basic Discovery. However, suggest: Therefore, GTSM can fully benefit LDP protocol peering session established using Basic Discovery. to: Therefore, GTSM can protect an LDP protocol peering session established using Basic Discovery. Thank you. - Next to last paragraph - last three sentences - a little verbose somewhat redundant. I think it can be summarized something like the following: OLD: This document specifies a built-in dynamic GTSM capability negotiation for LDP to suggest the use of GTSM. GTSM will be used as specified in this document provided both peers on an LDP session can detect each others' support for GTSM procedures and agree to use it. That is, the desire to use GTSM (i.e., its negotiation mechanics) is enabled by default without any configuration. NEW: This document specifies a dynamic GTSM capability negotiation mechanism for LDP. This mechanism allows both peers on an LDP session to indicate the support and use of GTSM without requiring any configuration. This one I prefer to leave as-is, although appears as redundant in the surface, it is agreed and crafted with some precision. 2) Section 2.2, 1st para, last sentence: and RECOMMENDED - and are RECOMMENDED Done. Thanks again. Adrian, I have these editorials in the working copy committed. I can submit a new rev at your request. Thanks, -- Carlos. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
[Gen-art] Gen-ART review: draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-typed-wc-fec-03
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-pwe3-pw-typed-wc-fec-03.txt Reviewer: Mary Barnes Review Date: 9 April 2012 IESG Telechat Date: 12 April 2012 Summary: Ready with nits. Comments: there are some editorial nits, many summarized below. There are several cases where an article - i.e., the, an, etc. is missing. I believe these can be fixed in AUTH48 and I imagine the RFC editor will catch them. But, if the doc needs any other updates, it would be good to make these fixes at the same time. Nits: - Section 1: - first paragraph, second sentence is very awkward and could be rewritten something like (unless I've misunderstood the objective of that sentence: OLD: This can be used when it is desired to request all label bindings for a given type of FEC Element, or to release or withdraw all label bindings for a given type of FEC element. NEW: This can be used to request, release or withdraw all label bindings for a given type of FEC element. - second paragraph, last sentence - missing articles (PWID, same) OLD: The procedures for Typed Wildcard processing for PWid and Generalized PWid FEC Elements are same as described in [RFC5918] for any typed wildcard FEC Element type. NEW: The procedures for Typed Wildcard processing for the PWid and Generalized PWid FEC Elements are the same as described in [RFC5918] for any typed wildcard FEC Element type. Section 3: - third paragraph, last sentence before list: OLD: provide more generalized and comprehensive solution by allowing: NEW: provide a more generalized and comprehensive solution by allowing: - list item 2: constraint - constrain Section 4.1: OLD: … had learnt from LSR B over LDP session. NEW: … learned from the LSR B over the LDP session. OLD: …such request… NEW: …such a request… OR ..the request… OLD: (no stale) NEW: (not stale) OLD: completes consistency check NEW: completes the consistency check Section 4.3: - first paragraph, last sentence: OLD: with large number NEW: with a large number Section 4.4: - 1st para, 2nd sentence: OLD: These procedures use LDP Address Withdraw message NEW: These procedures use an LDP Address Withdraw message - 2nd paragraph, last sentence: OLD: This per PW (VPLS instance) MAC Withdraw messages NEW: These per PW (VPLS instance) MAC Withdraw messages 3rd paragraph - 1st sentence: OLD: this document allows use of NEW: this document allows the use of ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
[Gen-art] Gen-ART review:draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-08.txt
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. Document: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-08.txt Reviewer: Mary Barnes Review Date: 24 Feb 2012 IETF LC End Date: 21 Feb 2012 IESG Telechat Date: 01 March 2012 Summary: Almost ready. Minor issues: 1) General: There is an inconsistent usage and lack of normative language in parts of the document. The following summarizes the majority of the cases that I encountered: - Section 4: -- Text after Figure 2 (before section 4.1). There is no normative language in these paragraphs. --- For example in the first paragraph, I would expect that the elements that ought to be included in the messages should be specified as MUST contain…. And, rather than The LMA sends…, I would think it would be The LMA MUST send… --- 2nd paragraph: I would expect to see …MUST send an LRA with status code… , MUST then create Localized Routing Entries… . There's also a should contain that I think ought to be SHOULD contain --- 5th paragraph: First sentence: and responds with.. - MUST respond with and it seems that there is some other normative language that could be added throughout that paragraph. - Section 4.1: -- 1st para, 1st sentence: needs to be - MUST be - Section 5: -- Paragraph after Figure 3. Similar comments as above. There's only one normative statement in that paragraph. -- Section 5.1: needs to be - MUST be, It will hence initiate - It MUST initiate LR. - Section 6: -- First paragraph after Figure 5: routing has to be initialized - routing MUST be initialized -- 2nd paragraph: It would seem that somewhere it should be stated that the Status value MUST be set to zero. Also, I don't the the last MUST in that paragraph is normative. I would think it could be a can and maybe the it can provide is where the MUST should be. - Section 6.1: -- needs to be - MUST be - Section 7: -- last sentence: should the recommended be upper case? - Section 8: shouldn't the must add the IPv4 HOAs be a MUST - Section 9.1: The LMA sends.. - The LMA MUST send, The MAG may… - The MAG MAY… - Section 9.2: The MAG sends… - The MAG MUST send, An LMA may send - An LMA MAY send - Section 11: using IPSEC is required - using IPSEC is REQUIRED 2) Section 4: last sentence of paragraph after Figure 1. The use of the EnableMAGLocalRouting flag seems key to whether this functionality is applied in some of the cases. It's first introduced as a Please note, although, it is clearly (but not normatively) specified in the 2nd paragraph after Figure 2. I would think it would be helpful to introduce this functionality in section 2, specifically in Section 2.1 by adding something like the following after the first sentence of that paragraph: The MAG MUST set the EnableMAGLocalRouting to a value of 1. 3) IANA Considerations: My understanding is that IANA wants a list of the necessary registrations in the same form as they would appear in the registries (per RFC 5226) - i.e., something like: Value Description Reference - --- - TBD1 Localized Routing Initiation [RFC] TBD2 Localized Routing Acknowledgment [RFC] ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
[Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call Review:draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-discard-prefix-02.txt
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-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-discard-prefix-02.txt Reviewer: Mary Barnes Review Date: 20 Jan 2012 IETF LC End Date: 23 Jan 2012 Summary: Ready. ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
[Gen-art] Gen-ART Review: draft-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-04
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-amundsen-item-and-collection-link-relations-04 Reviewer: Mary Barnes Review Date: 2 January 2012 IETF LC End Date: 5 January 2012 Telechat Date: 5 January 2012 Summary: Ready with nit. Nits: - - ID nits indicates that You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License Notice from 12 Sep 2009 rather than the newer Notice from 28 Dec 2009. ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
[Gen-art] [Updated] Assignments for the 2012-01-05 telechat
Hi all, Please note that since Jean sent this before her vacation, there have been some additional documents added to the telechat and one removed. All the files should be updated, BUT given this is the first round for me with the new tool, there could be some inconsistencies, so please let me know and if I can't fix it, Jean can when she gets back. Thanks, Mary. === Assignments for the telechat can be found here: http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/dav/genart/reviewers-120105-telechat.html With the updated spreadsheets: http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/dav/genart/gen-art.html http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/dav/genart/gen-art-by-reviewer.html I've also updated the review tool: http://art.tools.ietf.org/tools/art/genart/ 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://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/ Jean --- 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: 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] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 2011-12-30
Hi all, Here's the link to the new LC assignments: http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/dav/genart/reviewers-111230-lc.html The assignments are captured in the spreadsheets: http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/dav/genart/gen-art.html http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/dav/genart/gen-art-by-reviewer.html And I have made the assignments in the review tool: http://art.tools.ietf.org/tools/art/genart/ The standard template is included below. Thanks, Mary --- 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: 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 LC review: draft-ietf-idr-fsm-subcode-02
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-ietf-idr-fsm-subcode-02 Reviewer: Mary Barnes Review Date: 30 November 2011 IETF LC End Date: 12 December 2011 Summary: Ready with nits Nits: - There are articles (e.g., the) missing in quite a few of the sentences, however, the RFC editor should be able to easily fix those. ___ 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
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.htmlhttp://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/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-arthttps://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
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 maho...@nostrum.com 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.htmlhttp://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.commailto: 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.htmlhttp://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/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 mailto:Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/gen-arthttps://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] Gen-ART Telechat review: draft-ietf-tls-dtls-heartbeat-03.txt
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/GenArtfaqhttp://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-tls-dtls-heartbeat-03.txt Reviewer: Mary Barnes Review Date: 28 Oct 2011 IETF LC Date: 18 Oct 2011 IESG Telechat Date: 3 Nov 2011 Summary: Ready with editorial comments Editorial: 1) Section 2 (1st P, last sentence). The following sentence needs some work (there's a missing noun before the SHOULD) - I suggest something like the following: OLD: If an endpoint has indicated peer_not_allowed_to_send and receives a HeartbeatRequest message SHOULD drop the message silently and MAY send an unexpected_message Alert message. NEW: If an endpoint that has indicated peer_not_allowed_to_send receives a HeartbeatRequest message, the endpoint SHOULD drop the message silently and MAY send an unexpected_message Alert message. 2) Section 3: Should the has to be in this sentence be a MUST? Whenever a HeartbeatRequest message is received, it has to be answered with a corresponding HeartbeatResponse message. ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review: draft-ietf-lisp-ms-11
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-ietf-lisp-ms-11 Reviewer: Mary Barnes Review Date: 16 September 2011 IETF LC End Date: 29 September 2011 Summary: Ready. Nits: - If other changes are required, suggest that the following be fixed, otherwise, RFC editor will fix. - Section 4.2, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: also be - also - Section 4.2, 5th paragraph, 2nd sentence: can supported - can be supported - Section 4.3, next to last paragraph, last sentence: as as - as - Section 4.4, 1st paragraph after list, 2nd sentence: Map-Rqeuest - Map-Request ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
[Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat Review: draft-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw-07
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. Document: draft-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw-07 Reviewer: Mary Barnes Review Date: 19 2011 IETF LC End Date: 20 May 2011 IESG Telechat Date: 25 August 2011 Summary: Ready with nits The minor issues and nits in my Last Call review have been addressed. There are a couple nits that were introduced with these changes. Nit: - Section 1.2: it will always be will preceded - it will always be preceded - Section 8.5: There's a stray In a at the end of the first/only paragraph. ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat Review: draft-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw-07
One more nit - the email addresses for Joe Regan and Ulrich Drafz don't appear to be current. On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.comwrote: 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. Document: draft-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw-07 Reviewer: Mary Barnes Review Date: 19 2011 IETF LC End Date: 20 May 2011 IESG Telechat Date: 25 August 2011 Summary: Ready with nits The minor issues and nits in my Last Call review have been addressed. There are a couple nits that were introduced with these changes. Nit: - Section 1.2: it will always be will preceded - it will always be preceded - Section 8.5: There's a stray In a at the end of the first/only paragraph. ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat Review: draft-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw-07
Maybe there's an error with the alias, but that's the one for which I got an undelivered response. Did you not receive one in your response? Mary. On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Kompella, Vachaspathi P (Vach) vach.kompe...@alcatel-lucent.com wrote: ** Joe's email is joe.re...@alcatel-lucent.com. -Vach -- *From:* Mary Barnes [mailto:mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, August 19, 2011 9:52 AM *To:* gen-art@ietf.org *Cc:* draft-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw@tools.ietf.org *Subject:* Re: Gen-ART Telechat Review: draft-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw-07 One more nit - the email addresses for Joe Regan and Ulrich Drafz don't appear to be current. On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.comwrote: 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. Document: draft-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw-07 Reviewer: Mary Barnes Review Date: 19 2011 IETF LC End Date: 20 May 2011 IESG Telechat Date: 25 August 2011 Summary: Ready with nits The minor issues and nits in my Last Call review have been addressed. There are a couple nits that were introduced with these changes. Nit: - Section 1.2: it will always be will preceded - it will always be preceded - Section 8.5: There's a stray In a at the end of the first/only paragraph. ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat Review: draft-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw-07
Right and that Regan at the end is part of the email address in the author section of the document, so that needs to be fixed, as that's being pulled by the tool when it generates the alias and it would also be used by the RFC editor to contact the authors. Mary. On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Kompella, Vachaspathi P (Vach) vach.kompe...@alcatel-lucent.com wrote: ** I did get a bounce. The email has an extra Regan at the end. This is the email address that was undeliverable. I can send email to joe.re...@alcatel-lucent.com and it doesn't bounce. joe.regan@alcatel-lucent.comRegan -Vach -- *From:* Mary Barnes [mailto:mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, August 19, 2011 10:35 AM *To:* Kompella, Vachaspathi P (Vach) *Cc:* gen-art@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw@tools.ietf.org *Subject:* Re: Gen-ART Telechat Review: draft-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw-07 Maybe there's an error with the alias, but that's the one for which I got an undelivered response. Did you not receive one in your response? Mary. On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Kompella, Vachaspathi P (Vach) vach.kompe...@alcatel-lucent.com wrote: ** Joe's email is joe.re...@alcatel-lucent.com. -Vach -- *From:* Mary Barnes [mailto:mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, August 19, 2011 9:52 AM *To:* gen-art@ietf.org *Cc:* draft-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw@tools.ietf.org *Subject:* Re: Gen-ART Telechat Review: draft-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw-07 One more nit - the email addresses for Joe Regan and Ulrich Drafz don't appear to be current. On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com 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. Document: draft-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw-07 Reviewer: Mary Barnes Review Date: 19 2011 IETF LC End Date: 20 May 2011 IESG Telechat Date: 25 August 2011 Summary: Ready with nits The minor issues and nits in my Last Call review have been addressed. There are a couple nits that were introduced with these changes. Nit: - Section 1.2: it will always be will preceded - it will always be preceded - Section 8.5: There's a stray In a at the end of the first/only paragraph. ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
[Gen-art] Gen-ART Review: Last Call draft-ietf-lisp-lig-04.txt
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-ietf-lisp-lig-04 Reviewer: Mary Barnes Review Date: 10 August 2011 IETF LC End Date: 12 August 2011 Summary: Ready with comments/nits Comments/minor issues: - Section 3, Routing Locator definition: The third sentence is a little difficult to parse. I would suggest to reword something like the following (based on my interpretation of what the text is intended to say): OLD: Typically, RLOCs are numbered from topologically-aggregatable blocks that are assigned to a site at each point to which it attaches to the global Internet; where the topology is defined by the connectivity of provider networks, RLOCs can be thought of as PA addresses. NEW: Typically, RLOCs are numbered from topologically-aggregatable blocks that are assigned to a site at each point to which it attaches to the global Internet. Thus, the topology is defined by the connectivity of provider networks and RLOCs can be thought of as PA addresses. Also, you'll have to pardon my ignorance, but it's not obvious to me what PA stands for. I googled and I think it's Provider Aggregatable (and not Physical Address, which was my first reaction). I also found it expanded in draft-lisp-eid-block, which has a definition of RLOC that is mostly verbatim to this one, which makes me wonder why the terms need to be redefined in this document and isn't there the potential for the definitions to become inconsistent? - Section 3, Endpoint ID definition. It's not clear to me how SIP relates to LISP. I would think it's sufficient to use a DNS lookup as the example and delete the non-specific reference to a SIP Exchange. Nits: - - Section 2, 2nd paragraph: Map Resolvers - Map-Resolvers - Section 3, 2nd bullet: Map Replier - Map-Replier - Section 3, last paragraph: for lig initiating site - for the lig initiating site - Section 3, last paragraph: shouldn't lig self be ligging yourself? - Section 4.1, last paragraph before sample output for ligging yourself: to originating site - to the originating site ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
[Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call Review: draft-ietf-radext-crypto-agility-requirements-06.txt
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-ietf-radext-crypto-agility-requirements-06.txt Reviewer: Mary Barnes Review Date: 3 June 2011 IETF LC End Date: 14 June 2011 Summary: Almost Ready. The document is well written and concise. My primary concerns (minor issues really) are the many references to the WG, mailing list, IETF meetings, that while useful context for folks deeply involved in the activity, the information is not relevant to a broader audience and clutters the document IMHO. In addition, there are a few cases where I think normative language might be required (going along with the idea that normative language is appropriate in an Informational document). Major issue: - None Minor issue: - Introduction: It's my understanding that published RFCs shouldn't reference specific WGs and this sentence includes when approved which doesn't fit in the body of an RFC. Also, it's my understanding that any document published by a WG reflects consensus of that WG. So, I would suggest this sentence could be better stated as follows: OLD: This memo, when approved, reflects the consensus of the RADIUS Extensions (RADEXT) Working Group of the IETF as to the features, properties and limitations of the crypto-agility work item for RADIUS. NEW: This memo describes the features, properties and limitations of the crypto-agility solution for RADIUS. - General. I don't think you need references to the RADEXT WG since it a product of that WG - it's listed in the document header and it's obvious in the tools. Folks that aren't familiar with IETF probably don't care what WG produced the document. Subsequent comments below give specific suggestions around this. - Introduction,second paragraph. I don't think this necessarily fits the context of a published RFC. In general, the content of WG documents is based on mailing list discussion. And, it's usual that an informational document is published to provide the type of information that is noted in that paragraph. So, I would think you could just delete that paragraph. - Section 1.3. I don't think the background is necessary. Certainly, the motivation for this work is useful introductory information, but I think that initial problem statement/objectives could be reworded in present tense in terms of objectives and what this document specifies. - SEction 2. You could easily strike the first sentence in the first paragraph without any loss of information. Does it really matter that the definition was offered at IETF-68? - Section 2, 4th paragraph. Why is the second part of the first sentence a SHOULD NOT? What happens if this is done? For example, does this require additional specification of how the solution is still backwards compatible? It's generally a good idea to describe what might happen if someone doesn't abide by a SHOULD or SHOULD NOT. - Section 4.2, 5th paragraph, 1st sentence. Shouldn't the need not be stated using normative language - i.e., stated as OPTIONAL, something like Support for encryption of individual RADIUS attributes is OPTIONAL for solutions that provide encryption of entire RADIUS packets. - Section 4.2, Limit key scope paragraph. Should the not required be is OPTIONAL? - Section 4.3, 3rd paragraph. Shouldn't the can be be a MAY be? - i.e, isn't this normative behavior in terms of describing how the requirements for backwards compatibility can be satisfied or in some cases where they can't? - Section 4.3, 4th paragraph. Shouldn't the can omit be a MAY omit? - Section 4.3, 6th paragraph. Shouldn't the can be be a MAY be? - Section 4.6. This could be reworded to remove the references to IETF-70 and just state something like the following: OLD: At the IETF-70 meeting, and leading up to that meeting, the RADEXT WG debated whether or not RFC 4107 would require a RADIUS Crypto-Agility solution to feature Automated Key Management (AKM). The working group determined that AKM was not inherently required for RADIUS based on the following points: NEW: Consideration was given as to whether or not RFC 4107 would require a RADIUS Crypto-Agility solution to feature Automated Key Management (AKM). It was determined that AKM was not inherently required for RADIUS based on the following points: Nits: - - Section 4.6, 1st paragraph after the bulleted list: .., the same time, … - …, at the same time,... ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review: draft-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw-06
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-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw-06 Reviewer: Mary Barnes Review Date: 18 May 2011 IETF LC End Date: 20 May 2011 Summary: Almost ready Minor issues/suggestions: - Section 1.2 - While the 3rd paragraph notes that the TTL is described in the security section I think a bit more text might be helpful as I could not understand why the fact that the TTL in the flow LSE is never used to determine whether a packet should be discarded, introduces restrictions on the TTL value. Certainly, the relevant text is in the security section, however, it's very little text and I personally think a backward reference in the security section to an earlier section in the document is often more helpful than a forward reference. Also, it's not clear to me what that issue has to do with security - what is the security issue that is addressed by this choice of TTL? - Section 7, 3rd paragraph: What are the circumstances referenced in the 1st sentence? I assume it's referring to the method of load balancing described in this document rather than the situation described in the previous paragraph or perhaps it's both It might be more clear to include the 2nd- paragraphs as bullets so it's clear they are relating to the method of load balancing in this document and are not related. - Section 8.3, 1st paragraph, last sentence: This sentence does not make sense: An example of such a case is the of the flow label mechanism in networks using a link bundle with the all ones component [RFC4201]. There's a word missing here: the ? of the flow label mechanism. Also, the with all ones component phrase was unclear. I assumed it was referring to some functionality in RFC 4201. I think it would be much clearer to say the special bit value of all ones since the ones component terminology is not used in RFC 4201. - Section 9: This section lacks clarity. In the first sentence it might be helpful to qualify this technique as the technique described in this document. Also, by further application, do you mean an additional application of this technique or an extension of this technique (I've assumed the latter in my suggested rewrite below). The second sentence has a this that it's not clear to what it's referring - I think it's referring to the further application of this technique. The third sentence also has a this that I think is referring to the work on the generalization which is described in the referenced draft. And this construct in the third sentence is not at all clear …can be regarded as a complementary, but distinct, approach since similar although consideration may apply… Is this saying that the generalization of this to MPLS described in the draft is complementary, but distinct from the technique described in this document? If so, perhaps, the following suggestion can clarify this section. An extension of this technique is to create a basis for hash diversity without having to peek below the label stack for IP traffic carried over LDP LSPs. The generalisation of this extension to MPLS has been described in [I-D.kompella-mpls-entropy-label]. This generalization can be regarded as a complementary, but distinct, approach from the technique described in this document. While similar consideration may apply to the identification of flows and the allocation of flow label values, the flow labels are imposed by different network components, and the associated signalling mechanisms are different. Nits: - There's a stray END at the end of the abstract to the far right. - Section 1, first sentence: exit - exist - Section, 2nd para, 3rd sentence: hundred's - hundreds ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
[Gen-art] Fwd: Gen-ART LC review: draft-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw-06
Resending due to wrong alias in my first email = 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-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw-06 Reviewer: Mary Barnes Review Date: 18 May 2011 IETF LC End Date: 20 May 2011 Summary: Almost ready Minor issues/suggestions: - Section 1.2 - While the 3rd paragraph notes that the TTL is described in the security section I think a bit more text might be helpful as I could not understand why the fact that the TTL in the flow LSE is never used to determine whether a packet should be discarded, introduces restrictions on the TTL value. Certainly, the relevant text is in the security section, however, it's very little text and I personally think a backward reference in the security section to an earlier section in the document is often more helpful than a forward reference. Also, it's not clear to me what that issue has to do with security - what is the security issue that is addressed by this choice of TTL? - Section 7, 3rd paragraph: What are the circumstances referenced in the 1st sentence? I assume it's referring to the method of load balancing described in this document rather than the situation described in the previous paragraph or perhaps it's both It might be more clear to include the 2nd- paragraphs as bullets so it's clear they are relating to the method of load balancing in this document and are not related. - Section 8.3, 1st paragraph, last sentence: This sentence does not make sense: An example of such a case is the of the flow label mechanism in networks using a link bundle with the all ones component [RFC4201]. There's a word missing here: the ? of the flow label mechanism. Also, the with all ones component phrase was unclear. I assumed it was referring to some functionality in RFC 4201. I think it would be much clearer to say the special bit value of all ones since the ones component terminology is not used in RFC 4201. - Section 9: This section lacks clarity. In the first sentence it might be helpful to qualify this technique as the technique described in this document. Also, by further application, do you mean an additional application of this technique or an extension of this technique (I've assumed the latter in my suggested rewrite below). The second sentence has a this that it's not clear to what it's referring - I think it's referring to the further application of this technique. The third sentence also has a this that I think is referring to the work on the generalization which is described in the referenced draft. And this construct in the third sentence is not at all clear …can be regarded as a complementary, but distinct, approach since similar although consideration may apply… Is this saying that the generalization of this to MPLS described in the draft is complementary, but distinct from the technique described in this document? If so, perhaps, the following suggestion can clarify this section. An extension of this technique is to create a basis for hash diversity without having to peek below the label stack for IP traffic carried over LDP LSPs. The generalisation of this extension to MPLS has been described in [I-D.kompella-mpls-entropy-label]. This generalization can be regarded as a complementary, but distinct, approach from the technique described in this document. While similar consideration may apply to the identification of flows and the allocation of flow label values, the flow labels are imposed by different network components, and the associated signalling mechanisms are different. Nits: - There's a stray END at the end of the abstract to the far right. - Section 1, first sentence: exit - exist - Section, 2nd para, 3rd sentence: hundred's - hundreds ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
[Gen-art] Assignments for May 12, 2011 Telechat
Hi all, Jean is on vacation, so I am doing this week's telechat assignments. I am not able to access the new genart dav folder where she has been caching the files, so I've put them out in the temp-gen-art folder for now. Here's the link to the summary of assignments for the May 12th, 2011 telechat: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-110512-telechat.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://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/ Mary. --- 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: 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 Review: draft-ietf-vcarddav-vcardxml-08
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-ietf-vcarddav-vcardxml-08 Reviewer: Mary Barnes Review Date: 8 April 2011 IETF LC End Date: 20 April 2011 Summary: Almost Ready. Major issue: - The document is listed as Standards Track but but does not contain the RFC 2119 boilerplate. There is some RFC 2119 terminology used, however, there seems to be a lot of cases where RFC 2119 language is appropriate but not used. Minor issue: - The document doesn't pass idnits - the error appears to be an old reference to the IETF trust provisions. - I'm assuming an XML expert has reviewed the schema, however, there is no Write-up in the History stating such. ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
[Gen-art] Gen-ART Review: draft-ietf-mboned-addrarch-07.txt
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-ietf-mboned-addrarch-07.txt Reviewer: Mary Barnes Review Date: 07 April 2011 IETF LC End Date: 28 March 2011 Summary: Ready with minor issues. Minor issues: - Introduction, 3rd paragraph notes that this document only deals with the ASM model, yet the 2nd paragraph in section 2 notes that the address assignment inside the node for SSM is discussed. I would suggest to reword the 3rd paragraph in section 1 and it seems that the 2nd paragraph is section 2 is redundant. - Section 7, 1st paragraph notes that the security analysis of the mentioned protocols is out of scope of this memo. However, the next paragraph notes that the dynamic assignment protocol are inherently vulnerable…. Thus, I would suggest changing the first paragraph to something like the following (and removing 2nd): This memo only describes the approaches to allocating and assigning multicast addresses for existing protocols and thus adds no additional security considerations beyond those specified for the referenced protocols. Additional security analysis of these protocols is outside the scope of this document. Although, it should be noted the dynamic assignment protocols are inherently vulnerable to resource exhaustion attacks as discussed in [RFC2730]. In addition, if the intention was to highlight a security issue that should be resolved, then perhaps adding another bullet to section 4.3 would be appropriate. Obviously, especially the dynamic assignment protocols are inherently vulnerable to resource exhaustion attacks, as discussed e.g., in [RFC2730]. Nits/editorial comments: - Section 2, as described below might be better worded as as described in subsequent sections, although I think it would make the document more readable to summarize the mechanisms in a bulleted list and add section references. - Section 3 - same comment as for section 2. ___ 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 - 13 Jan 2011
Hi all, Here's the link to the new LC assignments for last week: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-110113-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 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: 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] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 27 Dec 2010
Hi all, Here's the link to the new LC assignments for last week: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-101227-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 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: 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] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 13 Dec 2010
Hi all, Here's the link to the new LC assignments for last week: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-101213-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 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: 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] Fwd: [IESG-AGENDA-DIST] Summarized Agenda for the 2010-12-16 IESG Teleconference
HI folks, I apologize that I have not yet had a chance to do the assignments for thursday's telechat. I thought I could get to it over the weekend, but was not able to obviously. I will get the s/s updated and assignments LCs out by the end of the day tomorrow. But, until if folks could check and see the docs that are on the telechat in case there are new versions. Thanks, Mary. -- Forwarded message -- From: IESG Secretary iesg-secret...@ietf.org Date: Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 5:08 PM Subject: [IESG-AGENDA-DIST] Summarized Agenda for the 2010-12-16 IESG Teleconference To: iesg-agenda-d...@ietf.org INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG) Summarized Agenda for the 2010-12-16 IESG Teleconference This agenda was generated at 2010-12-09 15:07:44 PST Up-to-date web version of this agenda can be found at: http://datatracker.ietf.org/iesg/agenda/ 1. Administrivia 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Bash the Agenda 1.3 Approval of the Minutes of Past Telechats 1.4 List of Remaining Action Items from Last Telechat OUTSTANDING TASKS Last updated: December 6, 2010 o Jari Arkko to add guidance on multi-Area work to the wiki. o Michelle Cotton to provide draft of -bis document for RFC 4020 Allocation procedures. o Tim Polk to update the IESG statement on choosing between Informational and Experimental status. o Alexey Melnikov to draft an IESG Statement on MIME Type Registrations from other SDOs, to include a statement on the stability of references in Media Type Registrations. o Sean Turner to determine if it is safe to use the old and new protocol numbers in the same port [IANA #404374]. 2. Protocol Actions 2.1 WG Submissions 2.1.1 New Items o draft-ietf-mpls-fastreroute-mib-15 Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Management Information Base for Fast Reroute (Proposed Standard) Note: Loa Andersson (l...@pi.nu) is the document shepherd. Token: Adrian Farrel o draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-19 HTTP State Management Mechanism (Proposed Standard) Token: Peter Saint-Andre o draft-ietf-sipcore-event-rate-control-05 Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Event Notification Extension for Notification Rate Control (Proposed Standard) Note: Adam Roach (a...@nostrum.com) is the document shepherd. Token: Robert Sparks Was deferred by Cindy Morgan on 2010-12-02 o draft-ietf-morg-list-specialuse-05 IMAP LIST extension for special-use mailboxes (Proposed Standard) Note: Timo Sirainen t...@iki.fi is the document shepherd. Token: Alexey Melnikov o draft-ietf-roll-trickle-06 The Trickle Algorithm (Proposed Standard) Note: JP Vasseur (j...@cisco.com) is the document shepherd. Token: Adrian Farrel o draft-ietf-tls-ssl2-must-not-03 Prohibiting SSL Version 2.0 (Proposed Standard) Note: Joe Salowey (jsalo...@cisco.com) is the document shepherd. Token: Alexey Melnikov o draft-ietf-avt-rtp-svc-24 RTP Payload Format for Scalable Video Coding (Proposed Standard) Note: Roni Even is the document shepherd (even.r...@huawei.com) Token: Gonzalo Camarillo o draft-ietf-xmpp-address-07 Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Address Format (Proposed Standard) Note: Ben Campbell (b...@nostrum.com) is the document shepherd. Token: Gonzalo Camarillo Was deferred by Cindy Morgan on 2010-12-02 o draft-ietf-sieve-notify-presence-03 Sieve Notification Using Presence Information (Proposed Standard) Note: Cyrus Daboo is the document shepherd. Token: Alexey Melnikov Was deferred by Robert Sparks on 2010-12-01 o draft-ietf-mpls-ip-options-05 Requirements for Label Edge Router Forwarding of IPv4 Option Packets (Proposed Standard) Note: George Swallow (swal...@cisco.com) is the Document Shepherd. Token: Adrian Farrel o draft-ietf-v6ops-3177bis-end-sites-00 IPv6 Address Assignment to End Sites (BCP) Note: Fred Baker (f...@cisco.com) is the document shepherd. Token: Ron Bonica o draft-ietf-morg-fuzzy-search-03 IMAP4 Extension for Fuzzy Search (Proposed Standard) Note: Barry Leiba (one of the MORG chairs) is the document shepherd. Token: Alexey Melnikov o draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-timestamps-02 Reducing the TIME-WAIT state using TCP timestamps (BCP) Note: Wesley Eddy (wesley.m.e...@nasa.gov) is the document shepherd. Token: Lars Eggert 2.1.2 Returning Items NONE 2.2 Individual Submissions 2.2.1 New Items NONE 2.2.2 Returning Items o draft-cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd-07 DNS-Based Service Discovery (Proposed Standard) Token: Ralph Droms o draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns-12 Multicast DNS (Proposed Standard) Token: Ralph Droms 3. Document Actions 3.1 WG Submissions 3.1.1 New Items o draft-ietf-ipfix-mediators-framework-09 IPFIX Mediation: Framework (Informational) Note: Juergen Quittek is the document shepherd Token: Dan Romascanu o draft-ietf-opsec-protect-control-plane-04 Protecting The
[Gen-art] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 2 Dec 2010
Hi all, Here's the link to the new LC assignments for last week: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-101202-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 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: 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
Re: [Gen-art] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 25 Nov 2010
I have no idea why the link goes to the 101118 file - either gmail or safari goofiness. Here's the correct link (maybe): http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-101125-lc.html Mary. On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.comwrote: Hi all, Please note that the ADs have gone wild with LCs over the past week and I am a bit late in getting some of the ones the week before assigned, so there are a few that are coming up quickly. Here's the link to the new LC assignments for last week: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-101125-lc.htmlhttp://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-101118-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 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: 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] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 15 Nov 2010
Hi all, Here's the link to the new LC assignments for last week: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-101115-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 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: 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 Nov 18, 2010 Telechat
Hi all, Sorry for the lateness. Here's the link to the summary of assignments for the Nov 18th, 2010 telechat: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-101118.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://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/ Mary. --- 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: Reviewer: Review Date: IESG Telechat date: 04 Nov 2010 ___ 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 - 04 Nov 2010
Hi all, Here's the link to the new LC assignments for last week: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-101104-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 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: 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] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 16 Oct 2010
Hi all, Here's the link to the new LC assignments for last week: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-101014-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 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: 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 Oct. 21st, 2010 Telechat
Hi all, Here's the link to the summary of assignments for the Oct. 21st, 2010 telechat: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-101021.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://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/ Mary. --- 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: Reviewer: Review Date: IESG Telechat date: 21 Oct 2010 ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
[Gen-art] Assignments for Oct. 7th, 2010 Telechat
Hi all, Here's the link to the summary of assignments for the Oct. 7th, 2010 telechat: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-101007.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://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/ Mary. --- 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: Reviewer: Review Date: IESG Telechat date: 07 Oct 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 - 1 Oct 2010
Hi all, Here's the link to the new LC assignments for last week: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-101001-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 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: 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 Sept.23, 2010 Telechat
Hi all, Here's the link to the summary of assignments for the Sept. 23rd, 2010 telechat: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100923.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://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/ Mary. --- 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: Reviewer: Review Date: IESG Telechat date: 23 Sept 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 Sept 2010
Hi all, Here's the link to the new LC assignments for last week: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100909-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 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: 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] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 2 Sept 2010
Hi all, Here's the link to the new LC assignments for this week: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100902-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 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: 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 Sept.9, 2010 Telechat
Hi all, Here's the link to the summary of assignments for the Sept. 9th, 2010 telechat: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100909.htmlhttp://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100715.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://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/ Mary. --- 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: Reviewer: Review Date: IESG Telechat date: 09 Sept 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 - 26 Aug 2010
Hi all, Here's the link to the new LC assignments for this week: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100826-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 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: 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] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 19 Aug 2010
Hi all, Here's the link to the new LC assignments for this week: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100819-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 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: 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] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 11 Aug 2010
Hi all, Here's the link to the new LC assignments for this week: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100805-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 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: 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 August 12, 2010 Telechat
Hi all, I have finally had the chance to generate the assignment file and update the s/s with the assignments for the August 12, 2010 telechat: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100812.html Please note that any reviews posted since last Thursday are NOT reflected in the spreadsheets. Vijay will upload all of them tomorrow and I'll then update the spreadsheets. 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://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/ Mary. --- 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: Reviewer: Review Date: IESG Telechat date: 12 Aug 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] Fwd: [IESG-AGENDA-DIST] Summarized Agenda for the 2010-08-12 IESG Teleconference
Hi folks, I apologize but I have not been able to get to the assignments (vacation in the way and not work for once) and likely won't be able to get to it for at least another day. I am forwarding this so that folks can see what docs are on the telechat and make sure to do any re-reviews. I will forward separately the list of reviews that Vijay has captured (that still need to be entered in the s/s), so you'll know that they have been uploaded. I will get all the information updated in the s/s no later than when I get back in town on Tuesday (COB). FYI, here's the summary of reviews by reviewer if you don't have your documents memorized off the top of your head. http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/gen-art-by-reviewer.html Again, sorry that I can't get to this in a timely manner this round. Mary. -- Forwarded message -- From: IESG Secretary iesg-secret...@ietf.org Date: Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 5:54 PM Subject: [IESG-AGENDA-DIST] Summarized Agenda for the 2010-08-12 IESG Teleconference To: iesg-agenda-d...@ietf.org INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG) Summarized Agenda for the 2010-08-12 IESG Teleconference This agenda was generated at 2010-08-05 15:53:21 PDT Up-to-date web version of this agenda can be found at: http://datatracker.ietf.org/iesg/agenda/ 1. Administrivia 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Bash the Agenda 1.3 Approval of the Minutes of Past Telechats 1.4 List of Remaining Action Items from Last Telechat OUTSTANDING TASKS Last updated: July 19, 2010 o Jari Arkko to add guidance on multi-Area work to the wiki. o Stewart Bryant and Adrian Farrel to discuss RFC 4020 Early Allocation procedures. o Lars Eggert to provide text to IANA for how to reflect inappropriately used TCP Option Numbers in the TCP Option Numbers registry. 2. Protocol Actions 2.1 WG Submissions 2.1.1 New Items o draft-ietf-ippm-spatial-composition-15 Spatial Composition of Metrics (Proposed Standard) Note: Henk Uijterwaal (h...@ripe.net) is the document shepherd. Token: Lars Eggert o draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-14 Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP) (Proposed Standard) Note: Ian Chakeres (ian.chake...@gmail.com) is the document shepherd. Token: Stewart Bryant o draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful-12 Stateful NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers (Proposed Standard) Note: Dave Thaler (dtha...@microsoft.com) is the document shepherd. Token: David Harrington o draft-ietf-behave-address-format-09 IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators (Proposed Standard) Note: Dave Thaler (dtha...@microsoft.com) is the document shepherd. Token: David Harrington o draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-te-07 IPv6 Traffic Engineering in IS-IS (Proposed Standard) Token: Stewart Bryant o draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-20 IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm (Proposed Standard) Note: Dave Thaler (dtha...@microsoft.com) is the document shepherd. Token: David Harrington o draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-reflect-octets-07 TWAMP Reflect Octets and Symmetrical Size Features (Proposed Standard) Note: Henk Uijterwaal (h...@ripe.net) is the document shepherd. Token: Lars Eggert o draft-ietf-softwire-ds-lite-tunnel-option-03 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) Options for Dual- Stack Lite (Proposed Standard) Note: Dave Ward (dw...@juniper.net) is the document shepherd. Token: Ralph Droms 2.1.2 Returning Items o draft-ietf-tls-rfc4366-bis-10 Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions: Extension Definitions (Proposed Standard) Note: Document shepherd is Joe Salowey Token: Sean Turner 2.2 Individual Submissions 2.2.1 New Items o draft-elie-nntp-list-additions-03 Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP) Additions to LIST Command (Proposed Standard) Token: Alexey Melnikov 2.2.2 Returning Items NONE 3. Document Actions 3.1 WG Submissions 3.1.1 New Items o draft-ietf-ipsecme-roadmap-08 IP Security (IPsec) and Internet Key Exchange (IKE) Document Roadmap (Informational) Note: Paul Hoffman (paul.hoff...@vpnc.org) the document shepherd for this document. Token: Sean Turner o draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-framework-09 Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation (Informational) Note: Dan Wing (dw...@cisco.com) is the document shepherd. Token: David Harrington o draft-ietf-forces-applicability-09 ForCES Applicability Statement (Informational) Note: The Document Shepherd is Jamal Hadi Salim (h...@mojatatu.com). Token: Adrian Farrel o draft-ietf-forces-implementation-report-02 Implementation Report for ForCES (Informational) Note: Joel Halpern (j...@joelhalpern.com) is the Document Shepherd. Token: Adrian Farrel o draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-06 Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers (Informational) Note: Fred Baker (f...@cisco.com) is the document shepherd. Token: Ron Bonica
[Gen-art] Fwd: Gen-ART area updated
FYI, the most recent reviews that have been uploaded. You can still click on
the link in the s/s even though there is no review summary to get to these
reviews.
Mary.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Vijay K. Gurbani v...@bell-labs.com
Date: Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 4:28 PM
Subject: Gen-ART area updated
To: Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com
Mary: I uploaded the following reviews:
draft-ietf-isis-bfd-tlv-02-halpern.txt
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-06-dupont.txt
draft-thaler-v6ops-teredo-extensions-07-even.txt
Thanks,
- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: v...@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org}
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/
___
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 - 29 July 2010
Hi all, Here's the link to the new LC assignments for this week: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100729-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 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: 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] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 15 July 2010
Hi all, Here's the link to the new LC assignments for this week: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100715-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 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: 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] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 8 July 2010
Hi all, Here's the link to the new LC assignments for this week: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100708-lc.html *** Please note that some of these are due very soon (e.g., today) and some of them are already on the telechat agenda - I've indicated such in those assignments *** 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 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: 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 July 15, 2010 Telechat
Hi all, Here's the link to the summary of assignments for the July 15th, 2010 telechat: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100715.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://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/ Mary. --- 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: Reviewer: Review Date: IESG Telechat date: 15 July 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] Assignments for July 1, 2010 Telechat
Hi all, Here's the link to the summary of assignments for the July 1st, 2010 telechat: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100701.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://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/ Mary. --- 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: Reviewer: Review Date: IESG Telechat date: 1 July 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 - 24 June 2010
Hi all, Here's the link to the new LC assignments for this week: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100624-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 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: 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] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 17 June 2010
Hi all, Here's the link to the new LC assignments for this week: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100617-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 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: 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] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 10 June 2010
Hi all, Here's the link to the new LC assignments for this week: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100610-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 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: 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 June 17, 2010 Telechat
Hi all, Here's the link to the summary of assignments for the June 17, 2010 telechat: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100617.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://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/ Mary. --- 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: Reviewer: Review Date: IESG Telechat date: 17 June 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] Resend: A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 03 June 2010
I don't see this in the archives - it seems there may be problems with IETF mailing lists. I've forwarded this to ietf-action. It doesn't seem Ive gotten any IETF mailing list emails this weekend except for the ID announcements, etc. Mary. -- Forwarded message -- From: Mail Delivery System mailer-dae...@core3.amsl.com Date: Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 1:25 PM Subject: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender To: mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com This is the mail system at host core3.amsl.com. I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below. For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster. If you do so, please include this problem report. You can delete your own text from the attached returned message. The mail system gen-...@core3.amsl.com (expanded from gen-art@ietf.org): delivery temporarily suspended: lost connection with 127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1] while sending RCPT TO Final-Recipient: rfc822; gen-...@core3.amsl.com Original-Recipient: rfc822;gen-art@ietf.org Action: failed Status: 4.4.2 Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; delivery temporarily suspended: lost connection with 127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1] while sending RCPT TO -- Forwarded message -- From: Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com To: gen-...@ietf.org Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 13:20:51 -0500 Subject: A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 03 June 2010 Hi all, Here's the link to the new LC assignments for this week: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100603-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 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: 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] Fwd: A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 03 June 2010
Sorry, this did not make it to the list due to IETF mail problems. -- Forwarded message -- From: Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com Date: Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 1:20 PM Subject: A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 03 June 2010 To: gen-art@ietf.org Hi all, Here's the link to the new LC assignments for this week: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100603-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 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: 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] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 27 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-100527-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 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: 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 June 3, 2010 Telechat
Hi all, Here's the link to the summary of assignments for the June 3, 2010 telechat: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100603.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://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/ Mary. --- 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: Reviewer: Review Date: IESG Telechat date: 3 June 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] Updated guidelines, reviewers, faq available at General Area Wiki on the IETF tools page
Hi all, I have moved the Gen-ART guidelines, FAQ and reviewer list to the Gen Area Wiki: http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki Please note that I have also updated the template included with the assignments this week with the updated link. The other still works, but it may stop working at some point and the link to reviews and the reviewer list are out of date. So, please use the updated link in future reviews. Also, I've added a summary of the aliases for the documents to the wiki, which should make it easier to get the reviews sent to the right folks. Thanks, Mary. ___ 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 - 06 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-100506-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] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 29 April 2010
Hi all, Here's the link to the new LC assignments for this week: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100429-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 May 6, 2010 Telechat
Hi all, Here's the link to the summary of assignments for the May 6, 2010 telechat: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100506.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: 6 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 - 22 April 2010
Hi all, Here's the link to the new LC assignments for this week: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100422-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 April 22, 2010 Telechat
Hi all, Here's the link to the summary of assignments for the April 22, 2010 telechat: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100422.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: 22 April 2010 Summary: Major issues: Minor issues: Nits/editorial comments: Reply Forward ___ 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 - 15 April 2010
Hi all, Here's the link to the new LC assignments for this week: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100415-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 April 8, 2010 Telechat
Hi all, Here's the link to the summary of assignments for the April 8, 2010 telechat: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100408.html [Note: the format for the assignments has changed as they've changed the IESG telechat agenda webpage, so it's not readily convertible to the html format I used previously - links to the drafts and previous reviews are in the spreadsheets] 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: 18 March 2010 Summary: Major issues: Minor issues: Nits/editorial comments: Reply Forward ___ 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 - 11 Mar 2010
Hi all, Here's the link to the new LC assignments for this week: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100311-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 March 4, 2010 Telechat
Hi all, Here's the link to the summary of assignments for the March 4, 2010 telechat: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100304.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: 4 March 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 - 25 Feb 2010
Hi all, Here's the link to the new LC assignments for this week: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100225-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] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 18 Feb 2010
Hi all, Here's the link to the new LC assignments for this week: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100218-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 Feb. 18, 2010 Telechat
Hi all, Here's the link to the summary of assignments for the Feb 18, 2010 telechat: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100218.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: 18 Feb 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 - 11 Feb 2010
Hi all, Here's the link to the new LC assignments for this week: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100211-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] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 04 Feb 2010
Hi all, Here's the link to the new LC assignments for this week: *http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100204-lc.html*http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100204-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.html *http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/gen-art-by-reviewer.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*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 Feb. 4, 2010 Telechat
Hi all, Here's the link to the summary of assignments for the Feb 4, 2010 telechat: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100204.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: 4 Feb 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 - 28 Jan 2010
Hi all, Here's the link to the new LC assignments for this week: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100128-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] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 21 Jan 2010
Hi all, Here's the link to the new LC assignments for this week: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100121-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] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 14 Jan 2010
Hi all, Here's the link to the new LC assignments for this week: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100114-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] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 07 Jan 2010
Hi all, Here's the link to the new LC assignments for this week: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100107-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 Jan 7, 2010 Telechat
Hi all, I apologize for the delay - I did not get the usual email with the agenda (they just sent a summary one), so I just totally forgot to do this last Thursday. Here's the link to the summary of assignments for the Jan 7, 2010 telechat: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100107.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: 07 Jan 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 - 24 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-091224-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] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 17 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-091217-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] 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] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 4 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-091203-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 3rd, 2009 Telechat
Hi all, Sorry for the delay in getting this out - the agenda came out late on Friday and I just could not get it done over the weekend. Here's the link to the summary of assignments for the Dec 3rd, 2009 telechat: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-091203.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: 03 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] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 30 Nov 2009
Hi all, Here's the link to the new LC assignments for this week: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-091126-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
