Re: [Gen-art] [Ace] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-12

Integer values between -256 and 255 and strings of length 1 are designated as Standards Track Required. Integer values from -65536 to 65535 and strings of length 2 are designated as Specification Required. Integer values of greater than 65535 and strings of length greater than 2 are

Re: [Gen-art] [TLS] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-04

>> Minor issues: >> >> I think convention is to list the documents being updated in the Abstract, >> but >> cannot find any formal guidance. > > You’re right that is the convention, but it’s not required. > draft-flanagan-7322bis is attempting to make including updates in the > abstract a

Re: [Gen-art] [Ace] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-12

I agree with Jim. This information is in the registration template at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-12#section-9.1.1, as follows: Claim Key: CBOR map key for the claim. Integer values between -256 and 255 and strings of length 1 are designated as

Re: [Gen-art] [TLS] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-04

> On Feb 27, 2018, at 11:21, Russ Housley wrote: > > >>> Minor issues: >>> >>> I think convention is to list the documents being updated in the Abstract, >>> but >>> cannot find any formal guidance. >> >> You’re right that is the convention, but it’s not required.

[Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-mmusic-rid-14

Reviewer: Robert Sparks 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 treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For

Re: [Gen-art] [Ace] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-12

Hi, See also my other notes. I believe that what the document tries to say is: Register R is divided into four different ranges R1, R2, R3, R4 (defining the value limits may be useful) Values in range R1 are allocated according to policy P1 in the case that ... Values in range R2 are allocated

[Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-trill-directory-assisted-encap-09

Reviewer: Roni Even 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

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-18

Hi Joel, done! The new version with your suggested changes and diff are here: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-19.txt https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-19 P.S. I took the liberty to fix a small typo from the text: drop HIP-base

Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-sidr-slurm-06.txt

Francis, Thanks for your review. Please see my response in lines. > 在 2018年2月27日，00:24，Francis Dupont 写道： > > 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

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-07

Hi Elwyn > I'll await the new version. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-08 Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-08 Thanks again for your review and comments. --Bruno From: Elwyn Davies [mailto:elw...@dial.pipex.com] Sent:

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-04

> On Feb 20, 2018, at 14:50, 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

Re: [Gen-art] [TLS] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-04

On 02/27/2018 08:11 AM, Sean Turner wrote: > There are two states for the Recommended column: YES and NO. I can go either > way on whether > marked as not recommended = NO > not marked as recommended = NO > > WG - thoughts? I thought we had always been clear that it was "not marked as

Re: [Gen-art] [Ace] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-12

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:59:50AM +0200, Dan Romascanu wrote: > Hi, > > See also my other notes. > > I believe that what the document tries to say is: > > Register R is divided into four different ranges R1, R2, R3, R4 (defining > the value limits may be useful) > > Values in range R1 are

Re: [Gen-art] [TLS] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-04

>I thought we had always been clear that it was "not marked as > recommended", i.e., "we make no comment about its status". That was my understanding to. The choices are "recommended" or "no comment" ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org

Re: [Gen-art] [TLS] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-04

> On Feb 27, 2018, at 09:55, Salz, Rich wrote: > > >> I thought we had always been clear that it was "not marked as >> recommended", i.e., "we make no comment about its status". > > That was my understanding to. The choices are "recommended" or "no comment” Yes, but we

Re: [Gen-art] [TLS] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-04

> On Feb 27, 2018, at 09:51, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > On 02/27/2018 08:11 AM, Sean Turner wrote: >> There are two states for the Recommended column: YES and NO. I can go >> either way on whether >> marked as not recommended = NO >> not marked as recommended = NO >> >> WG

Re: [Gen-art] [TLS] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-04

> On Feb 27, 2018, at 09:55, Sean Turner wrote: > > > >> On Feb 27, 2018, at 09:51, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: >> >> On 02/27/2018 08:11 AM, Sean Turner wrote: >>> There are two states for the Recommended column: YES and NO. I can go >>> either way on

Re: [Gen-art] [Ace] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-12

Hi Mike, The edits that you propose in #1 and #2 are good IMO and they would improve the clarity of the document. Concerning #3 - all the 'running code' examples that you provided are all for one type of policy only - Specification Required. The case here seems a little more complex, as the

Re: [Gen-art] [trill] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-08

Robert: Thank you for the review and a big thanks for catching the "F" Bit issue in section 4.3. I apologize for letting that slip through my shepherd filter. I suspect I've been reading this draft so often, that I'm starting to miss the obvious. Your point is valid about expanding the

Re: [Gen-art] [Ace] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-12

Hi Jim, There are still a few problems: 1. The policies and mapping to the values ranges are hidden in the Claim Key field in the template (the comment also made by Kathleen) 2. At least one incorrect policy name is used: Standards Track Required - do you mean Standards Action (?) 3. You

Re: [Gen-art] Genart early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-04

Is this for one operator (still important, but not necessarily for standardization) or are there several operators who have expressed interest in this? Yes, we do proactive standards. But the IDR group, for example, tends to be very careful to see if interest is reflected in implementation.

[Gen-art] Gen-art LC Review of draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-13

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

Re: [Gen-art] [Ace] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-12

From: Dan Romascanu [mailto:droma...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 2:23 PM To: Jim Schaad Cc: Benjamin Kaduk ; gen-art ; draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token@ietf.org; ietf ; a...@ietf.org Subject: Re: