1. The document should list 'Intended Status: Proposed Standard' in the
header
2. The document lacks an IANA consideration section. Moreover the
allocation of OptionType 22 in section 3.7.4 contradicts section 4.9.2
in RFC 4601 which states:
'OptionTypes 17 through 65000 are assigned by the
1. The header of the document should include: 'Intended Status -
Proposed Standard'
2. References problems:
- Unused Reference: 'RFC2586' is defined on line 2715, but not
referenced
'[RFC2586] Bierman, A., McCloghrie, K., Presuhn, R., Textual
Convent...'
- Unused Reference: 'RFC3636' is
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:
Is there any IPR that needs to be disclosed related to such a list?
dbh
-Original Message-
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 10:55 AM
To: Steven M. Bellovin; Dave Cridland
Cc: Dave Aronson; IETF-Discussion
Subject: Re:
On Wednesday, February 07, 2007 10:20:54 AM -0500 The IESG
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Internet Engineering Steering
Group (iesg) to consider the following document:
- 'Guidance on Area Director Sponsoring of Documents '
And we should ask this question every time we see an informational process
RFC last call...
The best reason to publish a process document as an RFC is because it will
be a BCP (IONs aren't BCPs). Since this one won't be a BCP, and given that
guidance could change over time, I'd think an ION
Hi.
I will get to substance in a separate note, and hope others will
also. In the interim, two procedural remarks...
(1) This document and draft-klensin-rfc-independent-05.txt
describe two pieces of the how a document that does not
originate in a WG may be reviewed and published space. Each
John C Klensin wrote:
If the IESG intends this document to merely represent the
particular procedures they intend to follow within the range of
alternatives over which they believe they have discretion, then
it should probably be published as an ION
Not publishing it at all is an
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 21:14:35 -0800
Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to understand better why ...
no automated key management
is specified.
Do they cite any of the reasons listed in RFC 4107?
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.
These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security
area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these
comments just like
-Original Message-
From: Steven M. Bellovin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 9:21 PM
To: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
Cc: iesg@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
Isidor Kouvelas (kouvelas); Tony Speakman (speakman);
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Extended ICMP to Support Multi-part Messages '
draft-bonica-internet-icmp-16.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.
The IESG contact person is Jari Arkko.
A URL
The IESG has received a request from the Internet Engineering Steering
Group (iesg) to consider the following document:
- 'Guidance on Area Director Sponsoring of Documents '
draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines-01.txt as an Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few
The IESG has received a request from the Cross Registry Information
Service Protocol WG (crisp) to consider the following document:
- 'A Domain Availability Check (dchk) Registry Type for the Internet
Registry Information Service (IRIS) '
draft-ietf-crisp-iris-dchk-06.txt as a Proposed
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 4651
Title: A Taxonomy and Analysis of
Enhancements to Mobile IPv6 Route Optimization
Author: C. Vogt, J. Arkko
Status: Informational
15 matches
Mail list logo
