[Gen-art] Review Assignments

2019-05-01 Thread Jean Mahoney via Datatracker 
Hi all,

The following reviewers have assignments:

For telechat 2019-05-02

Reviewer   Type  LC end Draft
Jari Arkko Last Call 2019-04-12 
draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-25
Jari Arkko Last Call 2019-04-05 
draft-ietf-manet-dlep-multi-hop-extension-06
Pete Resnick   Last Call 2019-04-11 draft-ietf-sidrops-lta-use-cases-06

For telechat 2019-05-16

Reviewer   Type  LC end Draft
Pete Resnick   Last Call 2019-04-23 draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-13
Dale WorleyTelechat  2018-12-24 draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-04 *

Last calls:

Reviewer   Type  LC end Draft
Stewart Bryant Last Call 2019-05-13 draft-ietf-tsvwg-tinymt32-01
Brian CarpenterLast Call 2019-05-13 draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-03
Russ Housley   Last Call 2019-05-15 draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-20 *
Meral Shirazipour  Last Call 2019-05-03 draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn-11
Dale WorleyLast Call 2019-05-07 draft-ietf-softwire-iftunnel-04
Peter Yee  Last Call 2019-05-08 draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6844bis-05

* Other revision previously reviewed
** This revision already reviewed

Next in the reviewer rotation:

  Stewart Bryant
  Brian Carpenter
  Elwyn Davies
  Linda Dunbar
  Francis Dupont
  Roni Even
  Tim Evens
  Fernando Gont
  Vijay Gurbani
  Wassim Haddad

The LC and Telechat review templates are included below:
---

-- Begin LC Template --
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:
Reviewer:
Review Date:
IETF LC End Date:
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary:

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments: 

-- End LC Template --

-- Begin Telechat Template --
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:
Reviewer:
Review Date:
IETF LC End Date:
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary:

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

-- End Telechat Template --


___
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-dots-signal-channel-30

2019-05-01 Thread Alissa Cooper 
Ines, thanks for your review. I entered a DISCUSS ballot to resolve a few 
questions.

Alissa

> On Mar 19, 2019, at 2:47 PM, Ines Robles via Datatracker  
> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Ines Robles
> 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-dots-signal-channel-30
> Reviewer: Ines Robles
> Review Date: 2019-03-19
> IETF LC End Date: 2019-03-19
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary:
> 
> I believe the draft is technically good. This document is well written and
> clear to understand. The draft is quite complete.
> 
> The document specifies the Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) signal channel, a
> protocol for signaling the need for protection against Distributed
> Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attacks to a server capable of enabling network
> traffic mitigation on behalf of the requesting client.
> 
> Major issues: Not found
> 
> Minor issues: Not found
> 
> Nits/editorial comments: Not found
> 
> Thanks for this document,
> 
> Ines.
> 
> 
> ___
> 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-housley-hkdf-oids-01

2019-05-01 Thread Alissa Cooper 
Francesca, thanks for your review. Russ, thanks for your response, which is 
compelling. I entered a No Objection ballot.

Alissa

> On Apr 8, 2019, at 10:27 AM, Russ Housley  wrote:
> 
> HKDF is gaining in popularity.  The only reason for standards track over 
> informational is to avoid a future issue with a downward reference.
> 
> Russ
> 
> 
>> On Apr 8, 2019, at 7:51 AM, Francesca Palombini via Datatracker 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Reviewer: Francesca Palombini
>> 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-housley-hkdf-oids-01
>> Reviewer: Francesca Palombini
>> Review Date: 2019-04-08
>> IETF LC End Date: 2019-04-22
>> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>> 
>> Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC
>> 
>> Major issues: N/A
>> 
>> Minor issues: N/A
>> 
>> Nits/editorial comments: N/A
>> 
>> Other: IANA registration does not require the document to be on Standard 
>> track,
>> AFAIK. Is there a reason to go for Proposed Standard rather than 
>> Informational
>> in this doc? (Also considering RFC7107 is informational)
>> 
>> 
> 

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

Re: [Gen-art] [netconf] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push-22

2019-05-01 Thread Alissa Cooper 
Stewart, thanks for your review. Alex, thanks for your responses, they all make 
sense to me. I have entered a No Objection ballot.

Alissa

> On Apr 24, 2019, at 3:07 PM, Alexander Clemm  wrote:
> 
> Hi Stewart,
> 
> Thank you for your comments!  Please find replies inline, 
> 
> --- Alex
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: netconf  On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant via
> Datatracker
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 1:41 PM
> To: gen-art@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org;
> netc...@ietf.org
> Subject: [netconf] Genart last call review of
> draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push-22
> 
> Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
> 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 more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> .
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push-22
> Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
> Review Date: 2019-04-10
> IETF LC End Date: 2019-04-12
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary: A well written document with just a small nuber of minor matter in
> the nits section that need to be considered.
> 
> Major issues: None
> 
> Minor issues: None
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
>  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7895 (Obsoleted by RFC 8525)
> 
> 
>  We will update the reference.
> 
> 
> SB> I assume that the ADs are happy with seven front page authors.
> 
> ===
> Abstract
> 
>   Via the mechanism described in this document, subscriber applications
> SB> I am not sure if  starting a sentence with "via" is good English but 
> SB> I have not seen it done before.
> 
>  we think "via" is fine; if you prefer it to say "using", please let
> us know and we will change it.  
> 
> 
> ===
>   Traditional approaches to providing visibility into managed entities
>   from remote have been built on polling.
> SB> from remote what?
> 
>  from a remote system, a remote application, a remote location.  
> I do think this is clear; if you prefer it to say "from a remote system" we
> will change; please let us know if you would prefer to make that change.  
> 
> 
> ===
> 
> 3.10.  On-Change Notifiable Datastore Nodes
> 
>   In some cases, a publisher supporting on-change notifications may not
>   be able to push on-change updates for some object types.  Reasons for
>   this might be that the value of the datastore node changes frequently
>   (e.g., [RFC8343]'s in-octets counter), that small object changes are
>   frequent and meaningless (e.g., a temperature gauge changing 0.1
>   degrees), or that the implementation is not capable of on-change
>   notification for a particular object.
> 
> SB> I could not see the parameter range specifiy what is regarded as 
> SB> trivial specified in the model. It seems that it perhaps ought to be.
> ===
> 
>  This will depend heavily on the object and its intended use.
> Basically we are giving only reasons why an implementation might choose to
> not support on-change notifications for a particular object.  Going deeper
> into reasoning behind such implementation choices, what size would be
> "small" or "large", and over what time interval, etc, would IMHO go beyond
> the scope of this document.  We prefer not to make a change to the document.
> (Please note that there is another draft on smart filters for push updates,
> which might in the future add the ability for users to e.g. configure this
> and other things.)
> 
> 
>   The next figure depicts augmentations of module ietf-yang-push to the
>   notifications that are specified in module ietf-subscribed-
>   notifications.  The augmentations allow to include subscription
> SB> s/allow to include/allow the inclusion of/
> ===
> 
> 
>  We will make this change.
> 
> 
> ___
> netconf mailing list
> netc...@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> 
> ___
> 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