Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of

Folks, The authors of this draft have informed me this document is required by the wg charter. So, I withdraw any criticisms about this document's limited scope. The scope was dictated by the charter. Ron > -Original Message- > From:

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation-07

> On Dec 7, 2015, at 1:31 PM 12/7/15, Stephane Bortzmeyer > wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 01:55:46PM +, > Ralph Droms (rdroms) wrote > a message of 128 lines which said: > >> Would you consider adding a little text somewhere to make it clear >>

Re: [Gen-art] [jose] Gen-Art LC review: draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-06

Mike proposes the following: "Using "crit" with "b64" If a JWS using "b64" with a value of "false" might be processed by implementations not implementing this extension, then the "crit" Header Parameter MUST be included with "b64" in its set of values to cause such implementations to

Re: [Gen-art] Genart Telechat review draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19

Thanks for your review, Alexey! Authors, what say you? Jari On 15 Dec 2015, at 14:23, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > I deleted an incorrect recipient in my original review. Sorry about that. > >> On 15 Dec 2015, at 11:19, Alexey Melnikov

Re: [Gen-art] [jose] Gen-Art LC review: draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-06

Mike, draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-08 says: if used in environments in which all participants implement this extension, then "crit" need not be included The clash here is whether such "environments" are reality, and if they are the audience of this IETF spec. This sentence

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-minorversion2-dot-x-39

> On Dec 13, 2015, at 4:44 PM, Elwyn Davies wrote: > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any

Re: [Gen-art] [jose] Gen-Art LC review: draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-06

James, as I see it, your proposal optimizes the Header Parameter requirements for the case in which the JWS isn't useful, rather than case in which it is. This seems backwards, from an engineering point of view. The new "crit" language in -08 already ensures clean failure in all the cases in

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-Art LC review: draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-06

Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Robert. Replies are inline below... > -Original Message- > From: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjspa...@nostrum.com] > Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 5:12 PM > To: Mike Jones ; General Area Review Team > ;

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-Art LC review: draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-06

Hey Richard, See my reply to Robert and the language being added to the spec. I believe that the text requiring "crit" in all situations other than when it adds no value should address the point you're making. Best wishes, --

Re: [Gen-art] Telechat review of draft-ietf-oauth-pop-architecture-07

Hi Matt, Thank you for your review! The editors will take these comments into consideration and discuss any updates. I'll note that the draft was pulled from the telechat and will likely not go through last call again until sometime around Buenos Aires due to some other changes that came up.

[Gen-art] Telechat review of draft-ietf-oauth-pop-architecture-07

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

Re: [Gen-art] [jose] Gen-Art LC review: draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-06

Hi Jim, Please see my replies to Robert and Richard. I believe they cover the point you're making below. -- Mike -Original Message- From: Jim Schaad [mailto:i...@augustcellars.com] Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 10:42 PM To: Mike Jones

Re: [Gen-art] Telechat review of draft-ietf-oauth-pop-architecture-07

Matt Thanks for the great review. As Kathleen mentioned, there are some other changes we have to make that will push the draft back. Never-the-less I will take into account all the reviewer comments in the next draft. All your comments seem very reasonable to me. Thanks, Phil > On Dec 17,

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-04

Thanks for your review, Brian. I propose: We note that [I-D.chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework] proposes a method similar to [I-D.tempia-opsawg-p3m], as ippm-list discussion revealed. hope that does it, Al > -Original Message- > From: Brian E Carpenter

Re: [Gen-art] Gem-Art review for draft-ietf-httpauth-scram-auth-14

Hi Ralph, Thank you for your review. Sorry I missed it earlier. On 09/12/2015 20:47, Ralph Droms (rdroms) wrote: Nits/editorial comments: Nicely written, very clear document. Thank you. idnits reports some lines too long and an unused reference. I fixed the reference in my copy. I hope RFC

Re: [Gen-art] Gem-Art review for draft-ietf-httpauth-scram-auth-14

> On Dec 16, 2015, at 10:47 AM 12/16/15, Alexey Melnikov > wrote: > > Hi Ralph, > Thank you for your review. Sorry I missed it earlier. You're welcome. Looks like we have agreement on my editorial comments and suggestions. Will the edits you mention below appear