[Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-adid-urn-01

[Brian E Carpenter]

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-adid-urn-01.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2016-11-24
IETF LC End Date: 2016-12-19
IESG Telechat date:

Summary: Almost ready


Comment:


I looked in vain for a shepherd's writeup or even a shepherd. I have no idea 
whether
this draft has gone through adequate expert review, and I am certainly not an 
expert.

Major Issues:
-

This is an informative document that states "Ad-ID is the industry standard..." 
but doesn't
provide a clear normative reference to an industry standard at that point. I 
assume that
would be [SMPTERP2092-1]. If so it should be referenced right there. 
Unfortunately it's
behind a pay wall (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7291518/). The IESG 
needs to confirm
whether that's acceptable.

>   An Ad-ID Identifier consists of a unique eleven character string
>   or a unique twelve character string (video codes only).

What's a "character"? ASCII or UTF-8?

The informative reference [Ad-ID-INTRO] doesn't seem to know whether it's a 
technical
appendix or a reference, and the URL that it cites is unhelpful. The material at
http://www.ad-id.org/how-it-works/ad-id-structure seems to be what is needed but
partly duplicates what is in the draft. Maybe this material is only given here 
because
the actual SMPTE standard costs more than $100? If so, I think it should be 
clearly
labelled as informational material and that only the SMPTE document is 
definitive.

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

Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-bbf-bbf-urn-02

[Joel Halpern]

The new version addresses my concerns and is ready for publication as an 
informational RFC.


Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

On 10/14/16 4:51 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:

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-bbf-bbf-urn-02
Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespaces for Broadband Forum
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: 14-October-2016
IETF LC End Date: 4-November-2016
IESG Telechat date: N/A

Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as an
Informational RFC.

Major issues:
RFC 3406 states that the namespace considerations section should
indicate why a new namespace is needed.  While this is pretty obvious,
the text does not actually say anything in that section to explain it.
In particular, I would expect that section to explain why 3 NIDs are
needed rather than just 1.


Minor issues:
The template in RFC 3406 indicates the the section in each NID on
the Process of identifier assignment should "detail the mechanism and or
authorities for assigning URNs to resources."  The draft simply says
that the BBF will provide procedures.  Do those procedures exist?  If
not, there seems to be a minor problem.  If they do exist, it would seem
sensible to include a pointer to the place where the BBF publicly
documents those procedures, so that people using this information who
might want to register something can understand what the rules and
expectations are. (I realize that the RFC 6289 example this is based on
did not include such a pointer, which is why I am making this a minor
comment instead of a major one.)

Nits/editorial comments:

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



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

[Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon-12

[Brian E Carpenter]

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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at
.

Document: draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon-12.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2016-11-24
IETF LC End Date: 2016-09-08
IESG Telechat date: 2016-12-01

Summary: Ready


Comments:
-

Thanks for fixing my Last Call comments.

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

[Gen-art] Assignments for the 2016-12-01 Telechat

[A. Jean Mahoney]

Hi all,

The following reviewers have assignments:

Reviewer  LC endDraft
-
Brian Carpenter   16-09-08 draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-intercon-12 *

Dan Romascanu 16-11-27 draft-ietf-siprec-callflows-07

Francis Dupont16-11-23 draft-holmberg-dispatch-received-realm-10 *

Fernando Gont 16-10-10 draft-levine-herkula-oneclick-08

Joel Halpern  16-11-04 draft-bbf-bbf-urn-03 *
Joel Halpern  16-11-10 draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-09 **

Lucy Yong 16-10-24 draft-ietf-pim-join-attributes-for-lisp-05 **

Orit Levin16-11-30 draft-ietf-6lo-6lobac-06

Paul Kyzivat  16-02-12 draft-ietf-behave-ipfix-nat-logging-11 *
Paul Kyzivat  16-11-30 draft-ietf-6lo-privacy-considerations-04

Pete Resnick  16-09-08 draft-ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension-11
Pete Resnick  16-11-14 draft-ieee-urn-03
Pete Resnick  16-11-30 draft-ietf-savi-mix-12

Peter Yee 16-11-15 draft-leiba-3967upd-downref-01 *

Russ Housley  16-10-10 draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp-15
Russ Housley  16-11-03 draft-ietf-kitten-pkinit-freshness-07 *

Robert Sparks 16-09-09 draft-ietf-taps-transports-12 *
Robert Sparks 16-11-02 draft-ietf-kitten-rfc6112bis-03 *

Wassim Haddad 16-11-03 draft-ietf-appsawg-mdn-3798bis-15

* Earlier draft reviewed
** Already reviewed


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

For your convenience, the review boilerplate template is included below.

Note that reviews should ideally be posted to the gen-art mailing list
by COB on Tuesday:
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/

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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

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] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 2016-11-23

[A. Jean Mahoney]

Hi all,

The following reviewers have assignments:

Reviewer  LC end  Draft
-

Brian Carpenter   16-12-19  draft-adid-urn-01

Christer Holmberg 16-12-06  draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-13

Dale Worley   16-12-06  draft-ietf-pals-endpoint-fast-protection-04

Vijay Gurbani 16-12-14  draft-ietf-avtext-avpf-ccm-layered-03


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] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-06

[Russ Housley]

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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at
.

Document: draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-06
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2016-11-23
IETF LC End Date: 2016-12-08
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Almost Ready


Major Concerns: None


Minor Concerns

In Section 3, it says:

   ... The values are from 0 to 255.  Values 0 and 255 are reserved
   for future use.  These values are assigned by IANA. ...

The use of "these values" is ambiguous.  I think that you mean the
values from 1 to 254, but based on the placement of this sentence, it
could mean 0 and 255.  Please reword to be very clear.

In Section 3.1, it says:

   ... The closer to the end of the packet are the EET's, the
   higher chance there is that a legacy node will recognize and
   successfully process some dispatch type [RFC4944] before the EET and
   then ignore the EET instead of dropping the entire packet.

I cannot figure out the first part of the sentence.  After reading it 
several times, I think the sentence it trying to say that placing an
EET toward the front of the packet has a greater probability of
causing the packet to be dropped than placing the same EET later in
the packet.  Please reword.

In Section 4, it says:

   [RFC5226] section 4.1 also indicates that "Specification Required"
   implies a Designated Expert review of the public specification
   requesting registration of the ESC Extension Type values.

s/implies/calls for/


Nits

The first paragraph of the Introduction has two sentences that begin
with "However".  I think some minor rewording would make the intent
more clear to all readers.

The Introduction says:

   ...  However, in recent years with 6lowpan deployments,
   implementations and standards organizations have started using the
   ESC extension bytes and co-ordination between the respective
   organizations and IETF/IANA is needed.

First: s/co-ordination/coordination/

Second: I am glad that we are seeing deployment.  That said, deployment
itself is not a reason for coordination.  Rather, it seems that the
experience has highlighted the need for an updated IANA registration
policy.

In Section 3:
s/Extended Dispatch Payload(EDP)/Extended Dispatch Payload(EDP)/

In Section 4:
s/IANA section/IANA Considerations section/

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