Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC2/Telechat review of draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-24

2016-08-17 Thread Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)
> On Aug 17, 2016, at 8:20 PM, Paul Giralt (pgiralt) wrote: > > >> On Aug 17, 2016, at 6:26 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: >> >>> Back to the current document: I have reread s3 of RFC 7206 and there are >>> some points that need to be sorted out: >>> >>> -

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC2/Telechat review of draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-24

2016-08-17 Thread Paul Giralt
> On Aug 17, 2016, at 6:26 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: > >> Back to the current document: I have reread s3 of RFC 7206 and there are >> some points that need to be sorted out: >> >> - The term 'end-to-end' is given a slightly specialized meaning in RFC 7206. >> This is

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC2/Telechat review of draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-24

2016-08-17 Thread Elwyn Davies
Cc: General area reviewing team <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-insipid-session-id@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC2/Telechat review of   draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-24 On 17 Aug 2016, at 12:04, Elwyn Davies wrote: > Hi, Ben. > > Having read Barry's proposed up

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC2/Telechat review of draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-24

2016-08-17 Thread Ben Campbell
On 17 Aug 2016, at 12:04, Elwyn Davies wrote: Hi, Ben. Having read Barry's proposed update for RFC 3967, I would be happy for that to become the status quo. However, I would distinguish between truly foundational documents that are produced in tandem with the protocol standards or

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC2/Telechat review of draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-24

2016-08-17 Thread Elwyn Davies
Hi, Ben. Having read Barry's proposed update for RFC 3967, I would be happy for that to become the status quo. However, I would distinguish between truly foundational documents that are produced in tandem with the protocol standards or subsequently (as mentioned in Barry's draft) and what

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC2/Telechat review of draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-24

2016-08-15 Thread Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)
Hi - I agree with Ben on all points. One inline point that bears reinforcement: > I believe the working group intent was that the definitions stated in RFC > 7206 are the ones used in the protocol. This is exactly right. In fact, this was a very tedious and drawn out process where we had

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC2/Telechat review of draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-24

2016-08-15 Thread Ben Campbell
Hi Elwyn: Responsible AD Hat on: I'm going to enter a DISCUSS position, to make sure this point gets discussion among the IESG before this progresses. The whole point of the repeated last call was to get feedback on the downref, and this certainly counts :-) All hats off: As an

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC2/Telechat review of draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-24

2016-08-12 Thread Elwyn Davies
19:58 (GMT+00:00) To: Elwyn Davies <elw...@folly.org.uk> Cc: General area reviewing team <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-insipid-session-id@ietf.org Subject: Re: Gen-art LC2/Telechat review of draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-24 On 12 Aug 2016, at 10:40, Elwyn Davies wrote: > I am

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC2/Telechat review of draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-24

2016-08-12 Thread Ben Campbell
On 12 Aug 2016, at 10:40, Elwyn Davies 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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new