Re: [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-gellens-lost-validation-05

(doffs shepherd hat) I agree with Pete. There’s more to a protocol than the on-the-wire bits. Anything important for interop to work should be considered part of the protocol. Discovery is an important part of that. Changing discovery to spread functions across different servers is a change to

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-push-21 - The pull request

-ietf-sipcore-sip-push@ietf.org>" > <mailto:draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-push@ietf.org>> > Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of > draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-push-21 > Resent-From: mailto:alias-boun...@ietf.org>> > Resent-To: Christer Holmberg <

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-push-21

> On Dec 20, 2018, at 9:37 AM, Christer Holmberg > wrote: > > > Example: pn-prid = 00fc13adff78512 > > > > For more information about the APNs Topic and device token: > > > > SB> Is the following part of the example? If so it could usefully be > > delimited > > SB> as such, otherwise, I

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-sipcore-originating-cdiv-parameter-05

Editorial comment: Since “originating after CDIV” is effectively used as a compound adjective, it would be better to hyphenate it, as in “originating-after-CDIV session”. That might also make it less confusing to people unfamiliar with the terminology. (Such a change can wait to be handled

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime-03

mean UAs (User Agents) as was used in the previous sentence. You are correct, it should be UAs. Good catch. Thanks! Ben. > > Thanks for considering my input. > > -Peter > > -Original Message- > From: Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@nostrum.com] > Sen

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime-03

Hi Peter, thanks for your review. Please see inline: Ben. > On Oct 8, 2018, at 9:57 PM, Peter Yee wrote: > > Reviewer: Peter Yee > 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

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-27

> On Jul 28, 2017, at 7:33 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > > On 7/28/17 7:23 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote: >> Hi Paul, >> Regarding the reference to RFC 4572, the new text in section 10.2.1 >> references RFC 4572. We earlier agreed we were not going to update that >> text,

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-12

On 27 Jan 2017, at 11:15, marianne.moh...@orange.com wrote: Hi Joel, I have submitted a new version (v-13) of the draft. I have addressed your comment for IPv6 addresses format in the example. Concerning your major comment, the discussion is leaded by Ben. To that point: Please note that

Re: [Gen-art] [dispatch] Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-12

On 20 Dec 2016, at 17:27, Robert Sparks wrote: I still think the shepherd's writeup caught this correctly: draft-mohali-dispatch-service-number-translation does not register a URI parameter; it just adds a reference to an existing registration. The decision to keep these

Re: [Gen-art] [dispatch] Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-12

On 20 Dec 2016, at 16:49, Adam Roach wrote: On 12/15/16 22:28, Ben Campbell wrote: The gotcha is that RFC 4588 would not be possible as an informational today; it would not have standing to register the "cause" parameter. But at the time it was published, there was a lack of clar

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-12

sn’t a working group discussion per se.) Thanks! Ben. > > On 12/15/16 11:28 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: >> Hi Joel, >> >> Thanks for the comments. There has been a fair amount of discussion >> about the status of the draft. The situation is clearly not optimal, and

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-12

Hi Joel, Thanks for the comments. There has been a fair amount of discussion about the status of the draft. The situation is clearly not optimal, and I welcome input on how to straighten it out. The rational so far has been that this draft updates RFC 4588, which is informational. It adds

[Gen-art] IESG comments on draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp

Hi, In case people haven't noticed, there are several IESG comments on draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp. I've seen a response to Stephen's comments, but haven't seen one to Alissa's discuss or Alia and Alvaro's comments. This is on Thursday's telechat; prior discussion would be helpful, even if

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp-15

Hi Russ, please see inline: Thanks! Ben. On 25 Nov 2016, at 14:30, Russ Housley 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

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

, that was a requirements draft referencing terms from other requirements/architecture/problem statement drafts, so the situation may be a bit different. Cheers, Elwyn On 15/08/2016 21:48, Ben Campbell wrote: Hi Elwyn: Responsible AD Hat on: I'm going to enter a DISCUSS position, to make

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

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

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

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART / SecDir Review of draft-ietf-avtext-splicing-notification-07

On 2 Jun 2016, at 10:23, Matt Miller (mamille2) wrote: I am the coincidentally-assigned Gen-ART and SecDir reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. The Security Directorate reviews all IETF

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-campbell-art-rfc5727-update-02

On 29 Feb 2016, at 8:45, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote: Ben Campbell wrote: (+ART ADs) On 26 Feb 2016, at 14:43, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote: Minor: - S1, "Other RAI working groups develop extensions to SIP that do not change the core protocol, new applications of SIP, and other technol

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-campbell-art-rfc5727-update-02

(+ART ADs) On 26 Feb 2016, at 14:43, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote: Minor: - S1, "Other RAI working groups develop extensions to SIP that do not change the core protocol, new applications of SIP, and other technologies for interactive communication among humans." Are we intentionally limiting

Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-codec-oggopus-10

On 18 Jan 2016, at 5:35, Harald Alvestrand wrote: Hm. I was confused. This document is about embedding OPUS (a standards-track document) inside of OGG (an informational); I was thinking of the precedent of embeedding video formats (informational at best) inside RTP (a standards-track), with

Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-codec-oggopus-10

The last call announcement included the following text: > Please note that the document makes normative references to RFCs 3533 and > 4732, which are informational. > Thanks! Ben. Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 15, 2016, at 4:26 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > > At the

Re: [Gen-art] Resolution on comments of draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pe-etree-10

Hi, This (I assume still unsubmitted) version addresses my IESG ballot comments. Thanks! Ben. On 11 Dec 2015, at 5:16, Jiangyuanlong wrote: Hi all, Thanks a lot for your reviews. Based on all the comments received during the IESG evaluation, we have prepared a tentative version 11 for

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art 2nd LC review of draft-ietf-payload-vp8-16

On 30 Jul 2015, at 3:14, Harald Alvestrand wrote: Unfortunately this is vacation time in Scandinavia - won't do anything with this until mid-August, I'm afraid. (Henrik might.) So it'll have to wait another 2 telechats or so. Understood, thanks!

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus-08

On 15 Apr 2015, at 4:38, Christer Holmberg wrote: Hi, Minor Issues: I previously gave the following comment:   “Regarding SDP, I think it would be good to have the ABNF syntax for the a=fmtp parameter (currently you only have descriptive text of the different parameters). It makes the life

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus-08

On 11 Apr 2015, at 8:23, Christer Holmberg wrote: Minor Issues: I previously gave the following comment:   “Regarding SDP, I think it would be good to have the ABNF syntax for the a=fmtp parameter (currently you only have descriptive text of the different parameters). It makes the life for

[Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-09

-problem-09 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2015-01-30 IETF LC End Date: IESG Telechat date: 2015-02-05 Summary: Ready for publication as an informational RFC. Version 09 addresses all of my comments from my Gen-ART review of version 08 at IETF last call. Major issues: None Minor issues: None

Re: [Gen-art] Last Call: draft-ietf-ippm-rate-problem-08.txt (Rate Measurement Test Protocol Problem Statement) to Informational RFC

Hi, This version addresses the concerns from my GEN-ART review. I agree that it's reasonable to skip the figure numbers with only two small figures. Thanks! Ben. On Jan 9, 2015, at 5:33 PM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) acmor...@att.com wrote: Ben, Dan, Greg, Version 09 of -ippm-rate-problem

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements-04

On Dec 23, 2014, at 1:45 PM, Kerry Lynn ker...@ieee.org wrote: On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Ben Campbell b...@nostrum.com wrote: 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

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-lmap-use-cases-05

Thanks! More inline: On Dec 16, 2014, at 3:12 AM, philip.eard...@bt.com wrote: Thanks! phil OLD o Understanding the quality experienced by customers. Alongside benchmarking competitors, gaining better insight into the user's service through a sample panel of the

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-lmap-use-cases-05

Thanks for the response. I removed sections that do not seem to need further discusson. On Dec 15, 2014, at 4:32 PM, philip.eard...@bt.com philip.eard...@bt.com wrote: [...] OLD o Understanding the quality experienced by customers. Alongside benchmarking competitors,

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-opsec-dhcpv6-shield-04

Thanks for your response. Here's some additional comments. I removed sections that didn't seem to need further discussion. On Dec 2, 2014, at 5:03 AM, Fernando Gont fg...@si6networks.com wrote: [...] Major issues: (Note: This is not so much a major issue as a meta-concern that doesn't

[Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-lmap-use-cases-05

-05 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2014-12-02 IETF LC End Date: 2014-10-07 ESG Telechat date: 2014-12-04 Summary: The draft is basically ready for publication as an informational RFC. All of the actionable issues from my last call review of version 04 have been addressed. There are a few

[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-mpls-deprecate-bgp-entropy-label-01

-label-01 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2014-11-03 IETF LC End Date: IESG Telechat date: (if known) Summary: Draft is ready for publication as a proposed standard. I have a few comments that might be worth considering if there are further updates, but should not block publication in any way

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-weirds-object-inventory-05

Thanks for the response. I have one further comment, otherwise your responses satisfy my concerns. On Oct 22, 2014, at 3:21 AM, Ning Kong nk...@cnnic.cn wrote: Every hyphen? This conflicts with example, where in abuse-mailbox, only one of the hyphens indicated a continuation. (Also, using

[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-weirds-object-inventory-05

Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2014-10-20 IETF LC End Date: 2014-10-24 Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an informational RFC. However, there are quite a number of editorial issues that probably should be considered first. Major issues: None Minor issues: -- section

[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-lmap-use-cases-04

: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2014-10-07 IETF LC End Date: 2014-10-07 Summary: The draft is almost ready for publication as an informational RFC. There are some minor issues and a number of editorial issues that should be considered before publication. Comment: [I'm not listing this as an issue

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-avtcore-srtp-aes-gcm-14

Hi Kevin, For the record, based on your comments I now consider the SSRC text to be a minor issue rather than a major one. Comments inline (again, deleting parts that seem closed) On Sep 18, 2014, at 10:30 AM, Igoe, Kevin M. kmi...@nsa.gov wrote: [...] Does the source in each source

[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-avtcore-srtp-aes-gcm-14

Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2014-09-11 IETF LC End Date: 2014-09-11 Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard, but there are open issues that should be addressed first. Note: I have not attempted to verify the pseudocode fragments in this draft. Major issues

[Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat Review of draft-ietf-forces-model-extension-04

-extension-04 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2014-08-27 IESG Telechat date: 2014-09-04 Summary: Ready for publication as a proposed standard Note: This version, along with email correspondences, address all of the comments from my review of version 03 at IESTF last call. Major issues: None

Re: [Gen-art] New Version Notification - draft-ietf-core-groupcomm-24.txt

On Sep 1, 2014, at 4:20 PM, Rahman, Akbar akbar.rah...@interdigital.com wrote: Hi Martin/Kathleen/Barry, We fixed one small but important point (in groupcomm-24): o Clarified in section 2.6.1.2 (Configuring Members) that ABNF rules from Section 3.2.2 of [RFC 3986] should be

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-forces-model-extension-03

(just in time it seems) the new version. Regards, Evangelos Haleplidis. -Original Message- From: Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@nostrum.com] Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 1:22 AM To: Haleplidis Evangelos Cc: draft-ietf-forces-model-extension@tools.ietf.org; gen- a...@ietf.org

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-forces-model-extension-03

On Aug 20, 2014, at 5:00 PM, Haleplidis Evangelos eha...@ece.upatras.gr wrote: [ΕΗ] I discussed with Joel with regards to the copyright issues. The short answer is that this document draws directly from RFC5812 and relies on RFC5812 for such issues (as it uses the same boilerplate). Is

Re: [Gen-art] [core] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-core-groupcomm-21

. Therefore, perhaps group CoAP should not be used for that application? Looking forward to your response, Akbar -Original Message- From: core [mailto:core-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ben Campbell Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 5:06 PM To: draft-ietf-core-groupcomm

[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-core-groupcomm-21

: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2014-08-14 IETF LC End Date: 2014-08-14 IESG Telechat date: Summary: This draft is not ready for publication as an informational RFC. It has some significant issues, detailed below. Major issues: -- The draft contains significant material that I do not believe

[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-core-groupcomm-21

these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-core-groupcomm-21 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2014-08-14 IETF LC End Date: 2014-08-14 IESG Telechat date: Summary: This draft is not ready for publication as an informational RFC. It has some

[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-forces-model-extension-03

Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2014-08-08 IETF LC End Date: 2014-09-09 Summary: Nearly ready for publication as a proposed standard, but there are some issues that should be considered first, and some editorial issues that might also be worth consideration. Note 1: I am not an expert in xml

[Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat Review of draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-07

-addr-arch-update-07 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2014-08-05 IETF LC End Date: 2014-07-02 IESG Telechat date: 2014-08-07 Summary: Ready for publication as proposed standard. All of my last-call comments from version 05 have been addressed. Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call Review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-frwk-06

Hi Lucy, I apologize for the late response. I somehow missed your mail when it came in originally. Comments inline. I've deleted sections where I don't have further comment. Thanks! Ben. On Jul 15, 2014, at 3:18 PM, Lucy yong lucy.y...@huawei.com wrote: [...] -- I suggest removing the

[Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat Review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-frwk-07

-frwk-07 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2014-08-05 IETF LC End Date: 2014-07-15 IESG Telechat date: 2014-08-07 Summary: Ready for publication as informational. All of the substantive comments from my last call review of version 06 have been addressed. Major issues: None Minor issues: None

[Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call Review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-frwk-06

: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2014-07-14 IETF LC End Date: 2014-07-15 Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an RFC, but I have a few minor issues and editorial comments that may be worth consideration prior to publication. Major issues: None Minor issues: -- I suggest removing

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-05

/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-07.txt Thank you for your careful review. Cheers, Med -Message d'origine- De : Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@nostrum.com] Envoyé : lundi 7 juillet 2014 23:29 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN Cc : draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-05

Hi, Please see inline (I deleted parts that don't appear to need further comment) On Jul 4, 2014, at 8:44 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: [...] -- idNits complains about the lack of a pre-5378 disclaimer boilerplate. I found a discussion in the 6man archives (

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-05

Hi, thanks for the response. I've got some more comments inline, and I removed sections that do not seem to need further comment. On Jul 3, 2014, at 6:20 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: [...] Major issues: None Minor issues: -- Section 2 I'd like

[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-05

-update-05 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2014-07-02 IETF LC End Date: 2014-07-02 Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard. I have a few comments that I think should be considered prior to publication. Major issues: None Minor issues: -- Section 2 I'd like

[Gen-art] Fwd: Gen-ART Telechat Review of draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-06

Oops, I accidentally sent the first attempt to gen-art-private: Begin forwarded message: From: Ben Campbell b...@nostrum.com Subject: Gen-ART Telechat Review of draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-06 Date: June 23, 2014 at 2:31:56 PM CDT To: draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link

Re: [Gen-art] [salud] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns-12 and also Area Director's review

(disclaimer: This landed in my inbox on the gen-art list, so I'm responding from that perspective. I was _not_ involved in the review. I haven't followed the draft, so my comments may be completely off-base due to lack of context.) On May 7, 2014, at 10:55 AM, Dale R. Worley wor...@ariadne.com

[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-radext-dtls-11

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. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-radext-dtls-11 Reviewer: Ben

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-radext-dtls-11

Thanks for the quick response. Comments inline, with sections that do not appear to need further content removed. On Apr 30, 2014, at 8:38 PM, Alan DeKok al...@deployingradius.com wrote: Ben Campbell wrote: -- 3.2, last paragraph: I'm still confused about how this is a bid down attack

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC/Telechat Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-09

. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-09 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Early Review of draft-hoffman-xml2rfc-04

Hi, thanks for the quick response. Comments inline; sections that do not seem to need further comment are deleted, and marked with [...] Thanks! Ben. On Apr 5, 2014, at 8:10 PM, Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote: [...] -- Section 1, paragraph 2: I find it confusing that we have

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Early Review of draft-hoffman-xml2rfc-04

On Apr 7, 2014, at 2:42 PM, Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote: Comment-on-comments below. I now have one new action item. --Paul Hoffman On Apr 7, 2014, at 11:37 AM, Ben Campbell b...@nostrum.com wrote: [...] --2.2: Can I have more than one of any given address sub

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Early Review of draft-hoffman-xml2rfc-04

Okay on all topics save the one below. Thanks! Ben. On Apr 7, 2014, at 4:34 PM, Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote: [...] -- 5, security considerations I wonder if the possibility of executable content existing in an RFC or draft is worth mention here? For an extreme example,

[Gen-art] Gen-ART Early Review of draft-hoffman-xml2rfc-04

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. Please resolve these comments along with any other comments you may receive. Document: draft-hoffman-xml2rfc-04 Reviewer: Ben Campbell

Re: [Gen-art] New Version Notification - draft-ietf-radext-ieee802ext-12.txt

(Adding Gen-ART, for the record) This version looks good to me. Thanks! Ben. On Mar 29, 2014, at 3:09 AM, Benoit Claise bcla...@cisco.com wrote: Ben, Jari, Final final check on your comment. Regards, Benoit A new version (-12) has been submitted for draft-ietf-radext-ieee802ext:

[Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat Review of draft-ietf-radext-ieee802ext-11

shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-radext-ieee802ext-11 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2014-03-25 IETF LC End Date: IESG Telechat date: 2014-03-17 Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a proposed standard. All of my previous comments have been

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-radext-ieee802ext-10

-ietf-radext-ieee802ext-10 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2014-01-31 IETF LC End Date: 2014-02-04 Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standards track RFC. I have a small number of minor comments that may be worth considering prior to publication. Major issues: None

[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC/Telechat Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-09

-09 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2014-03-21 IETF LC End Date: long time ago IESG Telechat date: 2014-03-27 Note: I somehow missed this assignment at last call time. Therefore this review serves as both a last call and an IESG telechat review. Summary: This draft is mostly ready

[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-qos-11

: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2014-03-20 IETF LC End Date: 2014-03-26 Summary: This draft is on the right track, but there are issues that need to be resolved prior to publication. *** Major issues: -- section 3, 1st paragraph: The access and the home network in the Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain

[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-radext-ieee802ext-10

: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2014-01-31 IETF LC End Date: 2014-02-04 Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standards track RFC. I have a small number of minor comments that may be worth considering prior to publication. Major issues: None Minor issues: -- 2.1, last paragraph

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-Art Early Review of draft-ietf-radext-dtls-07

...@deployingradius.com wrote: Ben Campbell wrote: *** Major issues: [...] -- section 3, 2nd paragraph: ... long-term use of RADIUS/UDP is NOT RECOMMENDED. While I agree with the sentiment, that's not an appropriate assertion for an experimental RFC. It would either need to go into an standards-track

[Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat Review of draft-ietf-avtcore-leap-second-07

-second-07 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2014-01-06 IESG Telechat date: 2014-01-09 Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a proposed standard. All comments from my previous review of version 06 have been addressed. Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat Review of draft-ietf-ipfix-data-link-layer-monitoring-07

On Dec 24, 2013, at 5:21 PM, Paul Aitken pait...@cisco.com wrote: Benoit, Ben, As I understand it the context is that certain data elements can include payload octets. This is subject to the security considerations in 5477, which basically say don't include too much, because of guidance

[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-16

-16 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2013-12-23 IETF LC End Date: 2013-12-25 Summary: Ready for publication as a standards track RFC. Note: I performed a Gen-ART review on version 06 of this draft at a previous IETF LC. While the draft has evolved quite a bit since then, this review is mostly

[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-16

-16 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2013-12-23 IETF LC End Date: 2013-12-25 Summary: Ready for publication as a standards track RFC. Note: I performed a Gen-ART review on version 06 of this draft at a previous IETF LC. While the draft has evolved quite a bit since then, this review is mostly

[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-avtcore-leap-second-06

Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2013-12-6 IETF LC End Date: 2013-12-9 Summary: The draft is ready for publication as a standards track RFC Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: -- 3.3, last paragraph: should second be seconds? -- 5, last paragraph: the a warping

[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-leiba-smime-type-registry-02

Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2013-11-15 IETF LC End Date: 2013-11-28 Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a proposed standard. Note: The Gen-ART assignment was originally for version 01. Since version 02 was already available at the time of my review, I reviewed it instead. Major

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-leiba-smime-type-registry-02

On Nov 25, 2013, at 1:41 PM, Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote: Hi, Ben, and thanks for the review. -- It might be helpful to include the URL of the parent registry. I assume it's intended to be http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types ? Normally, I would be that specific.

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat Review of draft-ietf-ipfix-data-link-layer-monitoring-07

for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-ipfix-data-link-layer-monitoring-07 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2013-11-19 IESG Telechat date: 2013-11-21 Summary: This draft is essentially ready for publication

[Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat Review of draft-ietf-karp-ops-model-09

-model-09 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2013-11-19 IESG Telechat date: 2013-11-21 Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an informational RFC. All the issues from my last call review, have been addressed, save 1 below. Major issues: None Minor issues: -- My last call review included

[Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat Review of draft-ietf-ipfix-data-link-layer-monitoring-07

-link-layer-monitoring-07 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2013-11-19 IESG Telechat date: 2013-11-21 Summary: This draft is essentially ready for publication as a standards track RFC. However, there is one issue that I unfortunately missed in my last call review of version 06 that should

[Gen-art] Gen-Art Early Review of draft-ietf-radext-dtls-07

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. This is an early review at WGLC last call. Document: draft-ietf-radext-dtls-07 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2013-11-18 Summary

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-ipfix-data-link-layer-monitoring-06

. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-ipfix-data-link-layer-monitoring-06 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2013-22-10 IETF LC End Date: 2013-23-10 Summary: Ready for publication as a proposed standard, with one

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-ipfix-data-link-layer-monitoring-06

. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-ipfix-data-link-layer-monitoring-06 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2013-22-10 IETF LC End Date: 2013-23-10 Summary: Ready for publication as a proposed standard, with one

[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-ipfix-data-link-layer-monitoring-06

-monitoring-06 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2013-22-10 IETF LC End Date: 2013-23-10 Summary: Ready for publication as a proposed standard, with one problem that should be easily fixed. Major issues: None Minor issues: 3.2.18: Title of the data element suggests a total, but the description

[Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat Review of draft-yusef-dispatch-ccmp-indication-06

-indication-06 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2013-10-08 IESG Telechat date: 2013-10-10 Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an informational RFC. This version addresses all the comments from my last call review of version 04. I do have a couple of new (or I missed the first time

[Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat Review of draft-ietf-intarea-flow-label-balancing-02

-label-balancing-02 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2013-10-08 IESG Telechat date: 2013-10-10 Summary: This version is ready for publication as an informational RFC. All of the comments from my previous last call review have been addressed either in this version or in email correspondence

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-05

Hi Ali, Those changes would resolve my comments. Thanks! Ben. On Oct 8, 2013, at 5:13 PM, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) saja...@cisco.com wrote: Ben, Thanks for your comments. I have incorporated all your comments in rev06 of this draft. On 9/23/13 1:29 PM, Ben Campbell b...@nostrum.com

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-yusef-dispatch-ccmp-indication-04

Hi Mary, I similarly apologize for the delay in responding. It's been a busy week. As I started to go over your responses one by one, I realized I had notated each one as WFM. So rather than send all that, I will summarize as I agree with all of your responses, and updates to these effects

[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-05

Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2013-09-23 IETF LC End Date: 2013-09-24 Summary: Ready for publication as an informational RFC. Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: -- Abstract: Please expand H-VPLS on first mention -- section 1, 1st paragraph: Please expand VPLS

[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-05

-establishment-05 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2013-09-16 IETF LC End Date: 2013-09-16 Summary: This draft is almost ready to be published as a proposed standard. There are a few minor issues that should be considered prior to publication. General: The draft is well written, and easier to read than

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-11

-Original Message- From: Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@nostrum.com] Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 4:50 PM To: Black, David Cc: Eric McMurry; General Area Review Team (gen-art@ietf.org); i...@ietf.org; d...@ietf.org; bcla...@cisco.com Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dime-overload

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dime-overload-reqs-10

Hi David, We agree on all your points, and will make the updates in the next version, pending shepherd instructions. Thanks! Ben. On Aug 22, 2013, at 2:50 PM, Black, David david.bl...@emc.com wrote: Hi Eric, This looks good - comments follow ... a) I assume that overload control

[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-karp-ops-model-07

Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2013-08-16 IETF LC End Date: 2013-08-18 IESG Telechat date: Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an informational RFC. I have a few clarity related comments that might be worth considering prior to publication. Major issues: None. Minor issues

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC/Telechat Review of draft-ietf-jcardcal-jcard-04

Thanks for the response. A few comments inline. I removed sections that don't seem to need further comment. On Jul 22, 2013, at 6:55 AM, Philipp Kewisch kewi...@gmail.com wrote: On 7/17/13 12:27 AM, Ben Campbell wrote: [...] -- 3.2.1.1: What happens for future versions of vCard? Do you

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-thornburgh-adobe-rtmfp-07

Thanks for the response! Comments inline: Thanks! Ben. On Jun 21, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Michael Thornburgh mthor...@adobe.com wrote: hi Ben. thanks for your review. comments/replies inline. From: Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@nostrum.com] Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 4:07 PM I am

[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-thornburgh-adobe-rtmfp-07

: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2013-06-20 IETF LC End Date: 2013-06-25 Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an informational RFC. However, I have some concerns about the purpose and intended status of the document that I think should be considered prior to publication. Note

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-thornburgh-adobe-rtmfp-07

On Jun 20, 2013, at 9:14 PM, Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote: -- Why does this need to be published as an IETF stream RFC? If I understand correctly, this documents an existing protocol as implemented by commercial products. I agree with Martin's comment that there is value in

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-thornburgh-adobe-rtmfp-07

On Jun 20, 2013, at 10:12 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote: p.s. I started a much more detailed response to Ben, but I think the essence of it is above. IMO, a discussion that amounts to whether or not an AD used bad judgment by choosing to sponsor an individual Informational

[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-forces-interop-07

: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2013-05-13 IETF LC End Date: 2013-05-13 IESG Telechat date: Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an informational RFC. I have a few minor questions and editorial comments that may be worth considering prior to publication. *** Major issues: None

  1   2   3   4   5   >