[Gen-art] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 2016-05-05

Hi all, The following reviewers have assignments: Reviewer LC date Draft - Christer Holmberg 2016-05-12 draft-ietf-dime-e2e-sec-req-04 Dale Worley 2016-05-12 draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-12 (also on the 05

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art telechat review of draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability-09

Ok. We’re already on the telechat, but the questions seem important. Do the authors have thoughts? Jari On 05 May 2016, at 09:40, 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 th

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tls-chacha20-poly1305-04 - resend

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Yoav Nir wrote: > Hi Roni. > > I think I can explain one of your questions. > > >> On 8 Apr 2016, at 5:36 PM, Roni Even wrote: > > > >>> Also note, the registry rules are: >>> >>> 0-191Standards ActionRefers to value of >>> first b

[Gen-art] Gen-art telechat review of draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability-09

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

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tls-chacha20-poly1305-04 - resend

Hi Roni. I think I can explain one of your questions. > On 8 Apr 2016, at 5:36 PM, Roni Even wrote: >> Also note, the registry rules are: >> >> 0-191Standards ActionRefers to value of >> first byte >> 192-254 Specification Required Refers to va

Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements-06.txt

Thanks! On 05 May 2016, at 08:24, Eric Voit (evoit) wrote: >>> The authors are in California. You will not see their response until >>> after the IESG meeting. >> >> That's fine :-) >> >> As long as somebody (like the shepherd) remembers where we are with this >> document, and remembers to ta

Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements-06.txt

> > The authors are in California. You will not see their response until > > after the IESG meeting. > > That's fine :-) > > As long as somebody (like the shepherd) remembers where we are with this > document, and remembers to take editorial stuff into account :-) Somehow I missed fixing Franci

Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements-06.txt

> The authors are in California. You will not see their response until after > the IESG meeting. That’s fine :-) As long as somebody (like the shepherd) remembers where we are with this document, and remembers to take editorial stuff into account :-) Jari signature.asc Description: Message

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-alakuijala-brotli-09

Many thanks for your review, Paul. I would like to know the answer to the authoritative specification question. Authors? As for the difficulty of implementing this, I have not read the document in its entirety, but my sense of it is that it is very difficult but comparable to other algorithmic

Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements-06.txt

ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements-06.txt > Reviewer: Francis Dupont > Review Date: 20160429 > IETF LC End Date: 20160429 > IESG Telechat date: 20160505 > > Summary: Ready > > Major issues: None > > Mi

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat Call review of draft-holmberg-dispatch-pani-abnf-03

Thanks! On 05 May 2016, at 02:01, Meral Shirazipour 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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD >

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition-04

Many thanks for the review and changes, Sriram and Pete! Jari On 29 Apr 2016, at 13:02, Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) wrote: > Pete, > > Thank you very much for your careful reading and the detailed > comments/suggestions. > I found them all very helpful, and the new version (-05) that I just u

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-radext-bigger-packets-05

Many thanks for the review, Matt! Jari On 23 Mar 2016, at 18:48, Matt Miller (mamille2) 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

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case-06

Thanks for the review, Dale, and thanks authors for the edits! Jari signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements-06.txt

Reviewer: Francis Dupont > Review Date: 20160429 > IETF LC End Date: 20160429 > IESG Telechat date: 20160505 > > Summary: Ready > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: None > > Nits/editorial comments: > - Abstract page 1, 4.1 page 7 and 4.2.2 page 9: i.e.

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-campbell-art-rfc5727-update-03

Thanks! On 29 Apr 2016, at 12:22, Barry Leiba wrote: > Thanks for the review, Vijay. > > Barry > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote: >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on >> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at >>

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library-05

On 29 Apr 2016, at 18:47, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: > Thanks Vijay. > +1 Jari signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-pals-seamless-vccv-02.txt

Thanks for your review, Francis! Jari signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tls-chacha20-poly1305-04 - resend

Thanks for your review, Roni! I do agree with Sean’s explanation though. There’s no requirement to make documents informational, even if the IANA rules don’t require something beyond informational. The decision to use informal or standards track depends on what the document is needed. And yes,