On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 4:54 AM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
We recently had a case where a document shepherd did not receive a review,
because he didn’t happen to be one of the WG chairs.
Gen-ART reviewers tend to send their reviews to draft-foo.all address.
Shepherd names are
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Mike Jones michael.jo...@microsoft.com wrote:
Minor issues:
More than once it is said that members that are not understood
should or must be ignored. Wouldn't this depend on context? Couldn't
there be uses of the data structure where a negative reply
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 2014-09-28
IETF LC End Date:
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a standards track RFC
Nits/editorial comments: My only question was about the issue of
permissiveness of registration, given the importance of this registry
-key-33
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 2014-09-28
IETF LC End Date: 2014-09-03
IESG Telechat date: 2014-10-02
Summary: ready with possible minor issues
Major issues:
Minor issues:
More than once it is said that members that are not understood
should or must be ignored. Wouldn't this depend
-key-33
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 2014-09-28
IETF LC End Date: 2014-09-03
IESG Telechat date: 2014-10-02
Summary: ready with possible minor issues
Major issues:
Minor issues:
More than once it is said that members that are not understood
should or must be ignored. Wouldn't this depend
-analysis-06
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 2014-08-17
IETF LC End Date: 2014-08-12
IESG Telechat date: 2014-08-21
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
___
Gen-art
-isdn-09
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 2014-08-02
IETF LC End Date: 2014-05-14
IESG Telechat date: 2014-08-07
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Standards Track RFC, with
one nit.
Nits/editorial comments:
A new sentence needs reworking:
If an interworking point is reached
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 2014-08-02
IETF LC End Date: 2014-06-30
IESG Telechat date: 2014-08-07
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Standards Track RFC.
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman
: Scott Brim
Review Date: 2014-07-27
IETF LC End Date: 2014-08-12
IESG Telechat date: not known
Summary: Ready with nits
Nits/editorial comments:
- Run idnits, there are a couple things to tweak. Otherwise it's a clear
draft.
Scott
___
Gen-art mailing
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 2014-06-24
IETF LC End Date: 2014-06-30
IESG Telechat date: not yet
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an informational RFC.
Nits/editorial comments:
I strongly encourage you to make the title of section 3 be Strongly
Encouraged Enhancements, not Strong
: Scott Brim
Review Date: 2014-06-03
IETF LC End Date: 2014-06-10
IESG Telechat date: not yet
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
-eth-oam-ext-12
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 2014-05-12
IETF LC End Date: 2014-04-15
IESG Telechat date: 2014-05-15
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a standards track RFC
Nits/editorial comments:
One sentence was changed from the last version in a way that makes it
more awkward
-eth-oam-ext-12
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 2014-05-12
IETF LC End Date: 2014-04-15
IESG Telechat date: 2014-05-15
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a standards track RFC
Nits/editorial comments:
One sentence was changed from the last version in a way that makes it
more awkward
: Scott Brim
Review Date: 2014-05-07
IETF LC End Date: 2014-05-14
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard
Comments: As a naive reader, I found no problems with consistency or
clarity. There was (at least) one typo that a spellchecker won't find
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 2014-04-09
IETF LC End Date: 2014-04-15
IESG Telechat date: none yet
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
Nice job.
Obsessive copyeditor nit: The sections on sub
-20
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 2014-03-21
IETF LC End Date: 2014-03-27
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: No problems
Comments:
As discussed in the LC review of version -19, I find it odd that a
standards track draft
* obsoletes RFC 1323
* but refers to it for substantial
-ind-05
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 2014-02-24
IETF LC End Date: 2014-03-14
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
___
Gen-art mailing list
-ind-05
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 2014-02-24
IETF LC End Date: 2014-03-14
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
___
Gen-art mailing list
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 2:45 PM, David Borman david.bor...@quantum.com wrote:
Scott,
This is an informative reference, not a normative reference. I'd only see
this as an issue if it was the latter, which it isn't. The protocol
specification in 1323bis stands on its own, which is why it
-09
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 2014-02-03
IETF LC End Date: 2014-01-16
IESG Telechat date: 2014-02-06
Summary: Ready with a minor issue
Major issues: none
Minor issues:
This is the same version I reviewed at LC. After discussion with the
authors I have changed my question
-attack-05
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 2014-02-01
IETF LC End Date: 2013-12-31
IESG Telechat date: 2014-02-06
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a BCP.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
Two comments:
First, there are good arguments for publication
Sam: I believe that all you ask is still there. We will consider PM at
architecture time, and anyone can contribute. We'll take it seriously.
What's missing is the requirement to demonstrate that you have covered all
the issues, to an unknown level. Essentially this is how we work already.
-attack-04
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 2014-01-18
IETF LC End Date: 2013-12-31
IESG Telechat date: (if known): 2014-01-23
Summary: Ready
Major issues: none
Minor issues: none
Nits/editorial comments: There are editorial changes I could suggest, but
it's good enough
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Aidan Williams
aidan.willi...@audinate.com wrote:
Hi Scott,
Hi Aidan. Let me try to be clearer. My problem is with the sentence:
If the answerer rejects the offer because the available reference
clocks are incompatible, the rejection MUST
contain at least one
Got it! Now that I understand, this is a simple editorial fix. How about
adding , for information. or , for logging.? Something like that.
I leave it to Jari whether you need a new version, but I would tell the WG
what you decide to do in any case. Since it's just editorial and doesn't
change
Jari, what do you want me to do for a perpass-attack review? We're still in
the middle of hashing it out. What are you going to do in the telechat?
Scott
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
: Scott Brim
Review Date: 2014-01-13
IETF LC End Date: 2014-01-16
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: Ready with a minor issue
Major issues:
Minor issues:
In 6.1.2 and 6.1.3: If the answerer rejects the offer because the
available reference clocks are incompatible, the rejection MUST
contain
: Scott Brim
Review Date: 2013-12-28
IETF LC End Date: 2013-12-31
IESG Telechat date: 2014-01-23
Summary: Ready for BCP, with one minor issue and some nits
Major issues:
Minor issues:
We've spent a lot of time on this draft and it looks good. I have one
remaining minor issue:
Participants
-handover-optimization-06
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 2013-12-03
IETF LC End Date: 2013-11-01
IESG Telechat date: (if known): 2013-12-05
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an experimental RFC.
Major issues: none
Minor issues: none
Nits/editorial comments: none
Scott
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 2013-12-01
IETF LC End Date: 2013-12-06
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments: None
... Scott
Pete: which protocols would you make mandatory? Personally I prefer
SCTP and/or application-specific quick reconnect :-) (my point being
there's no consensus, alas, but we're letting a hundred flowers bloom)
Scott
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 13:50, Pete McCann mc...@petoni.org wrote:
I am the
Ready for publication as a proposed standard RFC.
That completes my current run of gen-art participation. Please reduce
me to 0 per month but don't take me out totally yet, and let's find
out what the future brings. There's a chance I'll have time to do
more in a few months.
Thanks, and see
FYI July 8th will be my last day at Cisco. I'll be taking advantage
of the early retirement package to take a little time to get my life
organized and set up to do something else. I'll be consulting for
Internet2 part time for the next few months and then we'll see what
happens -- I would like
Much better. I have one very small suggestion: in the very last
paragraph, the one about Mgmt, is the last sentence relevant? It
would feel better to me just to stop with This document does not
define Management.. But that's aesthetics -- IMHO this version is
much better and my comments are
-oam-def-09
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 12 April 2011
IETF LC End Date: 20 April 2011
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: Not ready for publication as a BCP
Major issues:
The goal is good, but imho the draft is poorly organized, with the
result that it does not achieve its purpose
-3921bis-17
Reviewer: Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com
Review Date: 2010-12-09
IETF LC End Date: 2010-12-23
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: The document is ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
The document is a very good replacement for rfc3921.
swb
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 comments you may
receive.
Summary:
This draft is ready for publication as a
Vijay K. Gurbani allegedly wrote on 04/30/2010 09:09 EDT:
On 04/23/2010 12:56 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
I'm just sending this internally.
This draft is for Transport of Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID)
Messages, over XML over HTTP/TLS with a new TCP port number. I have
two thoughts: (1) I
I'm just sending this internally.
This draft is for Transport of Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID)
Messages, over XML over HTTP/TLS with a new TCP port number. I have
two thoughts: (1) I guess it works, and Can't we do better than
this? but I don't know much about ops/mgmt so I can't say
-sipping-rtcp-summary-08
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: February 13, 2010
IETF LC End Date: February 16, 2010
Summary:
This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard
Comments:
I accumulated some questions as I read the draft, but they were all
answered by the time I reached
: draft-ietf-mpls-typed-wildcard-05
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: February 04, 2010
Last call date: February 08, 2010
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as Informational RFC.
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org
Document: draft-ietf-6man-iana-routing-header-00.txt
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 2010-01-05
IETF LC End Date: 2010-01-12
Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC.
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https
This is a shallow review so I'm just sending to gen-art.
I would call this draft ready if they say it is. It's self-consistent
as far as it goes, and once I get past the terminology it's technically
clear. I trust them (having touched this topic myself in the past).
Given the role this draft
Document: draft-ietf-dime-diameter-cmd-iana-01.txt
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 2009-09-21
IETF LC End Date: 2009-09-22
IESG Telechat date: N/A
Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC.
Comments: Not a big issue but: if you do revise it, consider putting
Mary Barnes allegedly wrote on 07/29/2009 19:15 GMT+02:00:
HI all,
I was not successful in finding a place other than the Clarion
restaurant for lunch. I ate there on Monday and while the kitchen
doesn't open till noon, they were just able to get us out of there by
1pm and for the food was
kaushik allegedly wrote on 06/17/2009 7:14 PM:
Hi Scott,
The IETF specification is authoritative as far as the PA PB protocols
defined by the NEA WG since it represents work done by the IETF community on
the -00 version of the specification that was submitted by TNC. Contributors
to the PA
: draft-ietf-nea-pa-tnc-04
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: Jun 17, 2009
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.
Comments:
Because this draft is primarily meant to clone a standard from outside
of the IETF, I have essentially nothing to say about the content. It
seems
BOCCI Matthew allegedly wrote on 06/16/2009 10:40 AM:
Scott,
Many thanks for your review.
Matthew and all: Thanks for your excellent handling of this. I'm very
happy.
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
-ms-pw-arch-06.txt
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date:
IETF LC End Date: 2009-06-16
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
- In this one paragraph:
Note that although Figure 4
Cullen Jennings allegedly wrote on 06/10/2009 6:31 PM:
I've tentatively put this on the IESG call fro next week in the hope we
can sort this out before then but if not I expect this to turn into a
discuss.
On May 21, 2009, at 5:32 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
I'm sympathetic but I don't think
posting a new version of the draft.
Document: draft-sinnreich-sip-tools-06
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 21 May 2009
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).
Draft: draft-levine-rfb-01
Reviewer: scott.b...@gmail.com
Review Date: 6 May 2009
).
Document: draft-ietf-ipfix-exporting-type-03.txt
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 27 April 2009
Summary: No objection
I am far from an expert but it seems
Excerpts from Ted Lemon on Tue, Apr 14, 2009 02:48:06PM -0700:
I don't mean to minimize this issue - if in fact there is some
future real-world scenario where this would be a serious problem,
it would be good if we could anticipate it.
I'm just saying the WG should make an explicit
if tagging should be included in the container syntax or added
later (but documented now as needing study).
I'm CCing MIF in case people there aren't on the ietf list.
Thanks ... Scott
On Apr 7, 2009, at 2:25 PM 4/7/09, Scott Brim wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART
.
Document: draft-ietf-dhc-container-00
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 7 April 2009
IESG Telechat date: 14 April 2009
Summary:
This draft is on the right track but has open issues.
Comments:
More significant:
I am concerned about multiple interface scenarios as are being
discussed
-rfc3047-bis-08.txt
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 2009-01-29
IETF LC End Date: 2009-02-09
IESG Telechat date: (not known)
Summary: This document is ready for publication as Proposed Standard.
Comments:
ID-nits complains about normative references to lower level
standards
, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Scott Brim s...@employees.org wrote:
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
-mediactrl-architecture-04.txt
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 2009-01-19
IETF LC End Date: 2009-01-26
IESG Telechat date: (not known)
Summary: This document is ready for publication as an Informational
RFC with one nit.
Details:
It's good. I have a minor issue. I note that in the definition
If someone wants to take this one:
Reviewer: Scott Brim
- 'Home Automation Routing Requirements in Low Power and Lossy Networks '
draft-ietf-roll-home-routing-reqs-06.txt as an Informational RFC
IETF LC ends on 2008-12-24.
The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft
Excerpts from Lars Eggert on Fri, Nov 28, 2008 03:08:13PM +0200:
On 2008-11-24, at 18:40, ext Scott Brim wrote:
- Is it intended that the ENABLED flag applies to both sending and
receiving the UTO? It seems to be, but I want to be sure. If
that is the intention, could you make
OK with nits
I'm not going to send this out to anyone except gen-art for the record.
I found nothing wrong but Paul says he is going to produce a new
version because [EMAIL PROTECTED] found a typo and suggested the vbr-info
header field should be registered å la rfc3864. So I would accomplish
On 10/28/08 2:44 PM, Ben Campbell allegedly wrote:
I got a failure report for [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Can that be updated to a
current address prior to publication?
Just fyi he's [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
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 ).
Document: draft-ietf-sip-sips-08.txt
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 25 Sep 2008
IETF LC End Date
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 ).
Document: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-g711wb-03.txt
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 18 Sep 2008
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 ).
Document: draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcsec-gss-v2-05.txt
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 22 Aug
On 8/18/08 10:31 PM, actech allegedly wrote:
Mr.Brim,
Thank you for your comments for 16th version of ATARC payload format.
We agree with almost of your comments, and modified the draft
according to that. However, for one issue (regarding on Fragment Number),
we did not change the draft by
Of Scott Brim
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 8:59 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; gen-art@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Syslog] gen-art review of
draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-13.txt
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team
(Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft
On 7/31/08 1:27 AM, Vijay Gurbani allegedly wrote:
Gen-ART folks: I have a review due on Aug 5, 2008 for
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-13.txt.
Unfortunately, I will be on vacation for that week. Could someone
kindly help me out by owning the above review?
: draft-ietf-syslog-tls-13.txt
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 30 July 2008
Summary:
This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should
be fixed before publication.
Comments:
There is only one item that is significant, which is the last of the
SHOULD comments (just below
On 7/14/08 12:18 PM, Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) allegedly wrote:
Darn - and all this time as a Canadian I assumed we spelled it the same
way as Americans :)
I'll fix it up.
PatC
A Canadian once told me that in school they told him he could spell any
way he liked as long as he was consistent,
On 7/11/08 9:13 PM, Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) allegedly wrote:
- in TOC and section 6: Acknowledgements - Acknowledgments
PRC I think perhaps your version is the queen's english, while mine is
the one accepted in the US :(
It's the other way around, unfortunately. The USA mostly loses the e.
On 6/27/08 1:27 PM, Russ Housley allegedly wrote:
Mary:
I will be camping with a large group of boy scouts during the telechat
next week.
This must be the worst week for biting insects all year.
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-atrac-family-16.txt
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 24 June 2008
IESG Telechat date: 02 July 2008
Summary:
This draft is on the right track, but has open issues,
described in the review.
Comments:
This is being submitted as a proposed standard. Therefore I am asking
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for
draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework-01.txt
For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html.
Please resolve these comments along with any other comments you may
receive.
Summary: This
-mediactrl-requirements-03.txt
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 21 Jan 2008
IETF LC End Date: 29 Jan 2008
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits
that should be fixed before publication.
Comments follow:
Some of these nits are bigger
-mediactrl-requirements-03.txt
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 21 Jan 2008
IETF LC End Date: 29 Jan 2008
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits
that should be fixed before publication.
Comments follow:
Some of these nits are bigger
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for draft-FOOBAR.txt.
For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
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.
Summary: This draft is basically ready for
-xcon-framework-09.txt
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date:15 Oct 2007
IETF LC End Date: 22 Oct 2007
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard
RFC. I have a couple of comments which should not block it.
Comments
-epc-urn-02.txt
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date: 17 Sep 2007
IETF LC End Date: 11 Oct 2007
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is on the right track but has nits.
Comments:
This isn't my area but ...
- Nit: Should the epc registration date be updated? It still says:
Registration
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for draft-FOOBAR.txt.
For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
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.
Summary: This draft is basically ready for
On 13 Sep 2007 at 18:10 +0300, Pekka Savola allegedly wrote:
2.1.1:
Change PIM-SSM to PIM-SM.
Not sure if I understand this comment. I guess you're referring to
xxx; PIM-SSM is a subset of PIM-SM. but I don't understand why SSM
should be changed to SM. Yep, it's sometimes confusing
How does one review a MIB anyway? I can barely spell it.
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
83 matches
Mail list logo
