Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-hoffman-dns-in-json-15

[Alissa Cooper]

Stewart, thanks for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot.

Alissa

> On May 4, 2018, at 5:14 AM, Stewart Bryant  wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
> Review result: Ready
> 
> 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-hoffman-dns-in-json-15
> Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
> Review Date: 2018-05-04
> IETF LC End Date: 2018-04-20
> IESG Telechat date: 2018-05-10
> 
> Summary: This is a well written document ready for publication
> 
> Major issues: None
> 
> Minor issues: None
> 
> Nits/editorial comments: None
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-19

[Alissa Cooper]

Joel, thanks for your review. Miika, thanks for your responses. I have entered 
a No Objection ballot.

Alissa

> On Apr 5, 2018, at 9:39 AM, Joel Halpern  wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
> Review result: Ready
> 
> 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-hip-rfc4423-bis-19
> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
> Review Date: 2018-04-05
> IETF LC End Date: 2018-02-26
> IESG Telechat date: 2018-05-10
> 
> Summary: This document is ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
>My thanks to the authors for addressing the comments in my previous review.
> 
> 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 mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-teas-sr-rsvp-coexistence-rec-03

[Alissa Cooper]

Joel, thanks for your reviews. Harish, thanks for your responses. I entered a 
No Objection ballot.

Alissa

> On Apr 27, 2018, at 12:30 AM, Joel Halpern  wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
> Review result: Ready with Issues
> 
> 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-teas-sr-rsvp-coexistence-rec-03
> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
> Review Date: 2018-04-26
> IETF LC End Date: 2018-04-20
> IESG Telechat date: 2018-05-10
> 
> Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard
> 
> Major issues: N/A
> 
> Minor issues:
> As noted in my email response to this document revision, the authors have
> responded to my earlier comments.  While I think there are significant
> regards in which the document should be clearer, and would be helped by
> such increased clarity, it is technically correct and publishable as is.
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:  N/A
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile-05

[Alissa Cooper]

Stewart, thanks for your review. Authors, thanks for the lively discussion. :) 
I think it has improved the document. I entered a No Objection ballot.

Alissa

> On Feb 20, 2018, at 12:46 PM, Stewart Bryant  wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
> Review result: Ready with Issues
> 
> 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-homenet-babel-profile-05
> Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
> Review Date: 2018-02-20
> IETF LC End Date: 2018-02-26
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary: This is understandable, and close to completion. There are a few 
> minor
> points that need attention, and couple of major points that may just need
> clarification.
> 
> Major issues:
> 
> In addition,
>  if implementations use conflicting route selection policies,
>  persistent oscillations might occur.
> SB> Is this consistent with the statement earlier in the para that
> SB> " Distinct
> SB>   implementations of RFC 6126bis Babel will interoperate, in the
> SB>   sense that they will maintain a set of loop-free forwarding paths"?
> 
> ===
> 
> Since IPv6 has some
>  features that make implementations somewhat simpler and more
>  reliable (notably link-local addresses), we require carrying
>  control data over IPv6.
> SB> Earlier you said that IPv4 also had Link Local addresses, so how
> SB> can link local addresses be the deciding selection criteria? Is there
> SB> something technically better about IPv6 LL?
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
>  Rationale: support for wireless transit links is a "killer
>  feature" of Homenet, something that is requested by our users and
>  easy to explain to our bosses.  In the absence of dynamically
> 
> SB> Not sure explicability to your boss counts for much as a basis for
> SB> a feature an international standard.
> 
> ==
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> Abstract
> 
>   This document defines the subset of the Babel routing protocol and
>   its extensions that a Homenet router must implement, as well as the
>   interactions between HNCP and Babel.
> 
> SB> HNCP needs to be expanded
> SB> Both need a reference, but the reference needs to be expanded
> SB> i.e. RFC7788 not [RFC7788]
> 
> =
> 
>   The core of the Homenet protocol suite consists of HNCP [RFC7788], a
> SB> HNCP needs to be expanded on first use
> 
> =
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-10

[Alissa Cooper]

Elwyn, thanks for your review. I entered a No Objection ballot and pointed to 
your review there.

Alissa

> On Apr 14, 2018, at 6:59 AM, Elwyn Davies  wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
> Review result: Almost Ready
> 
> 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-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-10
> Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
> Review Date: 2018-04-14
> IETF LC End Date: 2018-04-10
> IESG Telechat date: 2018-05-10
> 
> Summary:  Almost ready.  My main concerns are the lack of a good introduction
> and a rather weak definition of the format of the new EVPN route option
> (looking back on RFC 7342, I think this could be said about that document
> also!).  This is very technical material and  a good introduction would help
> readers who are not  already deeply into the Data Center area to understand
> what is going on.  Also this document has some remaining vestiges of being
> written like an academc paper (some were fixed in the previous revision),
> particularly the spurious notion of having 'conclusions' (material actually
> deserves to be in the Intro)
> 
> Major issues:
> 
> None
> 
> Minor issues:
> Lack of a proper introduction: An introduction should precede the terminology
> section and needs to be somewhat clearer about the context (presumably
> multi-tenant data centers). A reference to RFC 7365 which describes the data
> center model in which the EVPN mechanism is expected to be employed would be
> very useful. A somewhat expanded version of the text in s2 would be a good
> basis for the introduction. The ss2.1 and 2.2 with a short new header would
> become a new section (3) which is the Problem Statement.
> 
> s5: Associated with my previous comment... An RFC is not a scientific paper 
> and
> does not have 'conclusions'.  On reading s5, it strikes me that this text 
> would
> actually make quite a nice part of the introduction, probably interpolated
> after the first paragraph of the current s2.
> 
> Terminology import: The current s1 contains a number of terms that are 
> actually
> defined in RFC 7365 (Data Center, Tenant System, Network Virtualization Edge,
> etc). Pointing to RFC 7365 s1.1 would be helpful.
> 
> s1, VNI: There is some difference between the usage of VNI in RFC 8365 
> (Section
> 5.1), in RFC 7365 (s3.1.2) where it means Virtual Network Instance and in this
> draft (... Identifier). This is potentially confusing to the naive reader and
> definitely confusing with the usage of VNI in item (4) of s4.1 where the VNI 
> is
> the VXLAN Network Identifier. It would be better if VNI meant the same thing 
> in
> all this closely related work. Please review all instances of VNI in the draft
> to make sure they are talking about the same thing.
> 
> s2.1:
>>   [RFC7432] is used as the control plane for a Network Virtualization
>>   Overlay (NVO3) solution in Data Centers (DC),
> The acronym NVO3 is used here as opposed to NVO which is used elsewhere in the
> document. NVO3 is used in RFC 7365 to refer to an overlay with an L3 underlay
> network. It is not quite clear to me whether this is a typo with EVPN NOT 
> being
> an NVO3 example or whether the sentence really ought to refer to RFC 7365 and
> explicitly say "Network Virtualization Overlay over Layer 3 tunnels". In any
> case you can't use an RFC as a control plane - they don't come with knobs on
> ;-) ! Suggest: NEW: [RFC7432] describes how a BGP MPLS-based Ethernet VPN
> (EVPN) can provide the control plane for a Network Virtualization Overlay 
> [over
> Layer 3 Tunnels] (NVO[3]) solution in Data Centers (DC), ENDS If this is a 
> real
> NVO3 then probably the NVO3 acronym should be used in the rest of the draft in
> place of NVO.
> 
> s3.1: The encoding of the IP Prefix Route encoding is both underspecified and
> to some extent confusing. [I note that this is, in part, inherited from RFC
> 7342, where I consider Section 7 to be grossly underspecified.] Specifically: 
> -
> Figure 3: Expand RD on first use. - 1st bullet after Fig 3: The usage of RD
> appears to be defined on a per route type basis in RFC 7342. Accordingly I
> don't think it is sufficient to refer to how it is done in RFC 7342. - 2nd
> bullet after Fig 3: s/byte/octet/ for consistency - 3rd bullet: Encoding not
> specified (presumably unsigned integer) - 4th bullet: The alignment of the
> prefix bits in the field is not specified (presumably left aligned). The 
> second
> sentence about the size of the field is unnecessary and confusing if the total
> length specification is given clearly. - 6th bullet: The alighment/encoding of
> the field is not specified (high order doesn't have any meaning without this).
> - 7th bullet: 

Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-secevent-token-08.txt

[Alissa Cooper]

Francis, thanks for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot.

Alissa

> On May 9, 2018, at 9:42 AM, Francis Dupont  wrote:
> 
> Got this review stalled on my desk...
> 
> 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-secevent-token-08.txt
> Reviewer: Francis Dupont
> Review Date: 20180419
> IETF LC End Date: 201805xx
> IESG Telechat date: unknown
> 
> Summary: Ready
> 
> Major issues: None
> 
> Minor issues: None
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> None about 08 version. Looking for 08-11 differences: looks fine.
> Spell checker notices nothing interesting (but found the claimc :-)
> 
> Regards
> 
> francis.dup...@fdupont.fr
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tokbind-protocol-16

[Alissa Cooper]

Jouni, thanks for your review. I have entered a Yes ballot.

Alissa

> On Dec 1, 2017, at 1:56 AM, Jouni Korhonen  wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
> Review result: Ready
> 
> 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-tokbind-protocol-??
> Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
> Review Date: 2017-11-30
> IETF LC End Date: 2017-11-27
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary: Ready to go. I am not an expert on this field thus my review was
> rather superficial. Reading the document through did not raise any alarms.
> 
> Major issues: None spotted.
> 
> Minor issues: None.
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:  IDnist result was good (outdated references are
> non-issues).
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-28

[Alissa Cooper]

Roni, thanks for your review. Miika, thanks for your response. I have entered a 
No Objection ballot.

Alissa

> On Apr 9, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Miika Komu  wrote:
> 
> Hi Roni,
> 
> On 04/08/2018 10:32 AM, Roni Even wrote:
>> Reviewer: Roni Even
>> Review result: Ready with Nits
>> 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-hip-native-nat-traversal-??
>> Reviewer: Roni Even
>> Review Date: 2018-04-08
>> IETF LC End Date: 2018-02-26
>> IESG Telechat date: 2018-05-10
>> Summary:
>> The document is ready for publication as a standard track RFC with one nit.
>> Major issues:
>> Minor issues:
>> Nits/editorial comments:
>> In section 7 - "a new error type  
>> SERVER_REFLEXIVE_CANDIDATE_ALLOCATION_FAILED
>> in Section 5.9." It is in section 5.10
> 
> good catch, I'll fix the reference in the next version. Thanks!
> 
> ___
> 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] review of draft-ietf-secevent-token-08.txt

[Francis Dupont]

Got this review stalled on my desk...

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-secevent-token-08.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20180419
IETF LC End Date: 201805xx
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:
 None about 08 version. Looking for 08-11 differences: looks fine.
 Spell checker notices nothing interesting (but found the claimc :-)

Regards

francis.dup...@fdupont.fr

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

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-04

[MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)]

Spencer wrote:
If you folks can contact the original authors and ask if they have any 
objections to use of the updated copyright boilerplate now, that may come in 
handy the next time IPPM needs to update 2330.

If you can't, it's probably best to update the copyright disclaimer now.

[acm] I updated the disclaimer in the working version.
I think there are a few more editorial comments to resolve.
Al

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF [mailto:spencerdawkins.i...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 1:20 PM
To: Francesca Palombini 
Cc: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) ; gen-art@ietf.org; 
i...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-04

Hi, draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6.all,

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 2:43 AM, Francesca Palombini 
> 
wrote:
> [acm]
> We can add the pre-5378 disclaimer as a catch-all, but I doubt the original
> authors would make any fuss about the small amount of common text with
> 2330.
> Almes, Paxson, Mahdavi and Mathis are all gentlemen and the best of their
> time.
>

I'm sure they are :) Just relaying what the id-nits told me.

If I might make an observation - the discontinuity between pre-5379 and 
post-5370 copyright grants isn't going to get better (until all pre-5370 RFCs 
are Historic), and we already have some running code from pre-5370 RFC authors 
becoming unreachable (in extreme cases, because they died).

If you folks can contact the original authors and ask if they have any 
objections to use of the updated copyright boilerplate now, that may come in 
handy the next time IPPM needs to update 2330.

If you can't, it's probably best to update the copyright disclaimer now.

Thanks!

Spencer

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