Indeed thank you for the review. And it was a good question. Jari
On 11 Sep 2015, at 16:33, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, Roni, > > Thank you for the review - it's always helpful ... > > Spencer > > On Sep 10, 2015 16:35, "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Roni, see replies below, > > > > Al > > > > From: Roni Even [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 2:16 AM > > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry-02 > > > > > > > > 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 Last Call comments you > > may receive. > > > > Document: draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry-02 > > > > Reviewer: Roni Even > > > > Review Date:2015–9-9 > > > > IETF LC End Date: 2015–9-10 > > > > IESG Telechat date: > > > > > > > > Summary: This draft is almost for publication as an Standard Track RFC. > > > > > > > > > > > > Major issues: > > > > > > > > > > > > Minor issues: > > > > > > > > The document registers IKEv2-derived Shared Secret Key in section 3.2.4. > > Why here and not in draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-11. I suggest deleting the > > registration of IKEv2-derived Shared Secret Key from here. Otherwise > > draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-11 should be normative reference since the [RFC TBD] > > depends on it and it may cause a delay in publication and creation of the > > registry. > > > > [ACM] It’s here because the IESG review of draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec spawned > > the question, > > > > “can we quickly create the needed registry for OWAMP?” As a result of > > discussion and agreement, > > > > draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec provides all the IANA Considerations for the TWAMP > > Registries, > > > > and this draft (which draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec is waiting for, not the other > > way around) > > > > provides all the IANA considerations to create the new OWAMP registries. > > > > > > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > > > In sections 3.1.2 and 3.2.2 the policy should be “IETF review” and not > > “IETF consensus” according to section 4.1 in RFC5226 > > > > [ACM] I see, the terminology has changed: > > > > IETF Review - (Formerly called "IETF Consensus" in > > > > [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]) New values are assigned only through > > > > RFCs that have been shepherded through the IESG as AD- > > > > Sponsored or IETF WG Documents [RFC3932] [RFC3978]. > > > > > > > > >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
