Hi Mary, I just noticed that the assignment spreadsheet did not show the result of the attached review. On inspection, I realize I forgot to copy the gen-ART list. Here it is again if it is still relevant.
Begin forwarded message: > From: Ben Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: January 8, 2008 9:59:37 PM CST > To: Joe Touch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-btns-prob-and-applic-06 > > 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: draft-ietf-btns-prob-and-applic-06 > Reviewer: Ben Campbell > Review Date: 8 Jan 2008 > IESG Telechat date: 10 Jan 2008 > > > > [note: This document is in the unusual state of being reviewed both > for IETF Last Call and for the IESG Telechat at the same time. This > reviewer is not sure whether to use the last call Gen-ART template > or the telechat one. He will, therefore, use the more restrictive of > the two, and hopes the authors, relevant ADs, and the IESG at large, > will, uhm, figure it out.] > > Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as an > informational RFC. There are some nits that should be considered > first. > > Comments: > > IDNITs returns the warnings: > >> Miscellaneous warnings: >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> == The copyright year in the IETF Trust Copyright Line does not >> match the >> current year >> >> == Line 709 has weird spacing: '...ructure iSCS...' >> >> == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to >> have RFC >> 2119 boilerplate text. >> >> >> Checking references for intended status: Informational >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC >> 2409 (ref. >> '4') (Obsoleted by RFC 4306) >> >> -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC >> 2401 (ref. >> '9') (Obsoleted by RFC 4301) >> >> == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of >> draft-ietf-hip-base-09 >> >> == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of >> draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure-08 >> >> -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC >> 2960 (ref. >> '18') (Obsoleted by RFC 4960) >> >> == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of >> draft-ietf-btns-connection-latching-03 >> >> == Outdated reference: draft-williams-on-channel-binding has been >> published >> as RFC 5056 >> > > Section 1, paragraph 4: > > How do trusted authorities differ from trusted third parties? More > to the point, is a PKI out-of-band or pre-deployed information? > > Section 2.1.1, paragraph 2: > > "The first three, IPv4/IPv6 addresses and DNS names..." > > Do you mean three or two? (I assume that IPv4 and IPv6 addrs are > sufficiently similar in this context not to count as two by > themselves.) > > Section 6, general: > > This section will rapidly become obsolete in that it refers to other > workgroups that one hopes will eventually finish their work and > close up shop, but this RFC is, well, forever. Is that appropriate > for an informational RFC? (Note that I am not saying that it is > _not_ appropriate--I don't know the answer on this one.) > > > > Thanks! > > Ben. > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
