Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-sframe-enc-07

Hi Linda, Secure Frames are *not* decrypted by the SFU. The outer HBH encryption is decrypted by the SFU, but the point of the E2E encryption is that the SFU does not have the keys. The document does not claim to save on SFU processing. For a switching SFU, the processing should be roughly the

Re: [Gen-art] [Perc] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-perc-srtp-ekt-diet-09

Hi Christer, Sorry, just now seeing this. Responses inline. PR here: https://github.com/ietf/perc-wg/pull/165 --RLB On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 6:06 PM Christer Holmberg < christer.holmb...@ericsson.com> wrote: > Reviewer: Christer Holmberg > Review result: Ready with Issues > > I am the

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-perc-double-10

Thanks for the review, Russ. Comments below (nothing major); pull request here for your review: https://github.com/ietf/perc-wg/pull/163 On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 4:24 AM Russ Housley wrote: > Reviewer: Russ Housley > Review result: Almost Ready > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-acme-acme-11

Hi Dale, Thanks for the review. Responses inline below; changes in this PR: https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/424 On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 9:03 PM, Dale Worley wrote: > Reviewer: Dale Worley > Review result: Ready with Issues > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-acme-acme-11

Hi Dale, Thanks for the review. Responses inline below; changes in this PR: https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/424 On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 9:03 PM, Dale Worley wrote: > Reviewer: Dale Worley > Review result: Ready with Issues > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer

Re: [Gen-art] [xmpp] Gen-ART review for draft-ietf-xmpp-websocket-07

On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote: On 8 July 2014 16:49, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) droma...@avaya.com wrote: Hi Dave, An implementor of RFC 6120 does not know that the XMPP over Websockets binding option exists at all. It did not exist by the time 6120 was

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-security-options-09.txt

Hopefully things will go so smoothly :) On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote: Thanks for the review, Suresh! Magnus Richard: the document is up for the IESG telechat on Thursday, and currently there are no Discusses. Make sure we're doing Approved::Revised

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-worley-service-example-13.txt

This sounds like something we could take up with the RFC Editor? On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 12:51 AM, Dale R. Worley wor...@ariadne.com wrote: From: Suresh Krishnan suresh.krish...@ericsson.com Enhancement request === * Maybe it is too much to ask, but it would be great

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ethernet-addressing-05

Hi Stewart, I think this resolves my issues. Thanks, --Richard On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Stewart Bryant stbry...@cisco.com wrote: On 02/04/2013 15:28, Richard Barnes wrote: Thanks for following up, and for the re-send. Just to be clear, I do not mean these as blocking points

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ethernet-addressing-05

, Apr 2, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Stewart Bryant stbry...@cisco.com wrote: Resending due to Richards change of address. Stewart On 11/02/2013 23:45, Richard Barnes wrote: I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART

Re: [Gen-art] 答复: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-10

Hey Lou, That text looks fine to me! --Richard On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Lou Berger lber...@labn.net wrote: Dan/Richard, On 2/4/2013 10:05 PM, Lidan (Dan) wrote: Hi Richard, Thanks for the review of this draft! Section 2.1. Would be helpful to either include the old

[Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-6man-udpzero-06

. Document: draft-ietf-6man-udpzero-06 Reviewer: Richard Barnes Review Date: 2012-10-08 IETF LC End Date: 2012-10-02 IESG Telechat date: 2012-10-11 Summary: Ready Comment: In general, the document is well-written and seems to cover the relevant considerations well. I agree with Barry's DISCUSS

[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-eai-mailinglistbis-05

Reviewer: Richard Barnes Review Date: 7 September 2012 IETF LC End Date: 29 August 2012 IESG Telechat date: (unknown) Summary: Ready ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pcp-base-23

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. Document: draft-ietf-pcp-base-23.txt Reviewer: Richard Barnes Review Date: 27 Feb 2012 IETF LC End Date: 27 Feb 2012 IESG Telechat Date

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-uri-02

that use the http: URI scheme. END One of my concerns behind wanting this general SHOULD is that there's no assurance that an http: URI will stay confined to the local network that is being relied upon to secure it. Thanks, --David -Original Message- From: Richard Barnes

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-uri-02

Hi David, The penalty for getting a quick response for the first time is that the second response takes longer :) Inline. - The additional text in section 3.1 stating that the policy URI is a shared secret with a forward reference to the security considerations section removes

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-14

Ben, Thanks for your review. With respect to the HTTP issue you raise, is your claim that the HTTP binding prevents the use of Digest or Basic based on this sentence from Section 6.3? HELD error messages MUST be carried by a 200 OK HTTP/HTTPS response. If so, then I think that's a