[Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-tictoc-multi-path-synchronization-05

[Joel M. Halpern]

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 just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

.

Document: draft-ietf-tictoc-multi-path-synchronization-05
Multi-Path Time Synchronization
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 15-Sept-2016
IETF LC End Date: 28-Sept-2016
IESG Telechat date: 29-Sept-2016

Summary: This document is ready for publication as an Experimental RFC

Major issues: N/A

Minor issues: N/A

Nits/editorial comments: N/A

___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

[Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-avtcore-5761-update-02

[Elwyn Davies]

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 just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

;.

Document: draft-ietf-avtcore-5761-update-02.txt 
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 2016/09/15
IETF LC End Date: 2016/09/22
IESG Telechat date: (if known) -

Summary: Ready (apart from a tiny bit of pedantry).

Major issues:None

Minor issues:
None
Nits/editorial comments:s3.1: It is a bit pedantic, but 'to be sure, to be 
sure', add new first line:   In the rest of this section references to Sections 
4 and 8 are to sections in [RFC 5761].
s3.1: Maybe s/OLD TEXT/EXISTING TEXT/ and s/NEW TEXT/REPLACEMENT TEXT/
s5: s/specifcation/specification/ (sorreee!)Sent from Samsung tablet.___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

[Gen-art] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 2016-09-15

[A. Jean Mahoney]

Hi all,

The following reviewers have assignments:

Reviewer  LC end  Draft
-
Elwyn Davies  2016-09-22  draft-ietf-avtcore-5761-update-02

Fernando Gont 2016-10-10  draft-levine-herkula-oneclick-04

Francis Dupont2016-10-10  draft-murchison-nntp-compress-05

Joel Halpern  2016-09-29
draft-ietf-tictoc-multi-path-synchronization-05 *

Jouni Korhonen2016-09-28  draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-05

Lucy Yong 2016-09-28  draft-ietf-ipsecme-ddos-protection-09 *

Matt Miller   2016-09-29  raft-ietf-6lo-paging-dispatch-04 *

Meral Shirazipour 2016-09-28  draft-ietf-cose-msg-18 *

Orit Levin2016-09-29  draft-ietf-ipsecme-safecurves-04

*  On the 9/29 Telechat


I have made the assignments in the review tool:
http://art.tools.ietf.org/tools/art/genart/

And the assignments are captured in the spreadsheets:
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/dav/genart/gen-art.html
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/dav/genart/gen-art-by-reviewer.html

The template is included below.

Thanks,

Jean

---

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 just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

.

Document:
Reviewer:
Review Date:
IETF LC End Date:
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary:

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

[Gen-art] [Gem-art] Gem-ART review of draft-moriaty-pkcs1-03

[Lucy yong]

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, 
please see the FAQ at 
Document:   draft-moriaty-pkcs1-03
Reviewer: Lucy Yong
Review Date:   15 September 2016
IETF LC End Date:2 September 2016

Summary:
The document is well written, and is ready for publication as Informational 
RFC. IPR considerations are in Appendix D.
Major Issues:None
Minor Issues:

* Several places use xxx-PKCS-v1_5, should it be xxx-PKCS1-v1_5? where 
xxx may be EMSA, RSAES, and RSASSA.
Editorial Issues:

* Please check the Idnits tool

* Page 18: s/k - 2hLen -2/k - 2hLen - 2/

* Page 18: s/"knowing"the/"knowing" the/

* Page 40: s/ -- such as the salt value in EMSA-PSS --/ such as the 
salt value in EMSA-PSS/

* replace Section 7.2.2. title with "Decryption operation"

* In Section 8.2, s/Note:/Note./   (to be consistent with the rest of 
doc.)

* Section 8.2 last paragraph, replace "recommended" with "RECOMMENDED"
Regards,
Lucy
___
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-mptcp-experience-06

[Jari Arkko]

Thank you very much for the excellent review.

I do believe the “standardised” needs to change.

Authors, do you have comments on the rest?

Jari

On 06 Sep 2016, at 19:18, Dan Romascanu  wrote:

> Summary: Ready with issues
> 
> A very useful and well written document, which gathers implementation
> and deployment experience and expands the list of the Multipath TCP
> Use Cases. A few minor issues described below, if addressed, could
> improve the clarity and usability of the document.
> 
> Major issues:
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> 1. The 'Introduction' section starts with the statement:
> 
>> Multipath TCP was standardized in [RFC6824] and five independent
>   implementations have been developed.
> 
> Saying 'was standardized' seems misleading to me, as RFC 6824 is an
> experimental RFC, so not even standards-track (this putting aside the
> discussions whether RFCs are standards). Actually at no point this
> document mentions that Multipath TCP is Experimental, this seems odd.
> 
> 2. It would be useful to clarify the statement about the iOS
> implementation of Multipath TCP in the Introduction by mentioning what
> 'single application' is referred.
> 
>> However, this particular Multipath TCP implementation is currently only used 
>> to support a single application.'
> 
> 3. I am questioning whether the 'Multipath TCP proxies' section really
> belongs to the use cases or rather to operational experience. After
> all it's about a strategy of deployment of Multipath TCP in cases
> where clients and/or servers do not support Multipath TCP but the need
> exists probably because of the combination of one or several other use
> cases.
> 
> 4. In section 3.5:
> 
>> There have been suggestions from Multipath TCP users to modify the
>   implementation to allow the client to use different destination ports
>   to reach the server.  This suggestion seems mainly motivated by
>   traffic shaping middleboxes that are used in some wireless networks.
>   In networks where different shaping rates are associated to different
>   destination port numbers, this could allow Multipath TCP to reach a
>   higher performance.  As of this writing, we are not aware of any
>   implementation of this kind of tweaking.
> 
> Beyond the potential problems described in the following paragraph, is
> such a 'tweak' consistent with the protocol definition, or would it
> need to cause changes in the protocol as defined now? A clear
> recommendation seems to be needed here.
> 
> 5. A more clear recommendation would be useful also in 3.8. It is not
> clear here whether the segment size selection is a design or a tuning
> issue that can/should be added to applications.
> 
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> 1. Section 3.12 contains a timed statement 'As of September 2015 ...'
> which should be updated or maybe edited to make it less
> time-dependent.
> 
> 2. It seems to me that [RFC6824] and [RFC6181] should be Normative
> References as they describe the protocol extensions, and the initial
> list of use cases which is expanded by this document. Without reading
> these two documents, this one does not make too much sense.



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 Last Call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-03

[Jari Arkko]

Meral, many thanks for your review. Again!

Stephane, thanks for observing these comments and taking them into account.

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-pals-mc-pon-04

[Jari Arkko]

Thanks for your reviews again, Roni! I have marked this document as “no 
objection” for me on tonights telechat.

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