Document seems reasonable. Its informational and is acceptable. No-obj.
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
How does one review a MIB anyway? I can barely spell it.
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
My approach was to review them from the perspective of determining if
the applicability of the MIB could be clearly understood from the
overview text and made sense to me at a high level. Other than that, I
always included a disclaimer/assumption that the doc had been reviewed
by a MIB doctor.
Background for those on the CC list, who may be unaware of GenART:
GenART is the Area Review Team for the General Area of the IETF. We
advise the General Area Director (i.e. the IETF/IESG chair) by providing
more in depth reviews than he could do himself of documents that come up
for final
I was selected as General Area Review Team reviewer for this specification
(for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Summary: This document is on the right track for publication as a Proposed
Standard. I do have some comments, but overall
Hi Elwyn,
Thanks for your review.
I interpret the word cost as cost of an attack, which is a
perfectly acceptable term in analyzing security properties of a
protocol or a mechanism. Your wording is also fine. I don't have
strong feelings either way.
GMARCH is a typo and should be GKMARCH
