Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-08

2019-10-21 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
Thanks for the update, Mike. I will go ahead and get this in front of the whole IESG, but one comment below... On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 10:57:06PM +, Mike Jones wrote: > Hi Christer, > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-09 has > been published, which

Re: [Gen-art] [Pce] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-14

2019-10-21 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 02:48:00PM +0100, Cyril Margaria wrote: > Thanks for the review, > > a new version has been posted addressing your comments. > Please also see inline > > On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 13:47, Elwyn Davies via Datatracker > wrote: > > > > > s9.2, RFC7025: Given the references

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-tls-sni-encryption-05

2019-09-03 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
Thanks for the review, Meral! Authors, I'm going to go ahead and send this over to the IESG, but it will end up (most likely) on the September 19th telechat, so you have over a week to get a revision up with fixes. -Ben On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 05:56:20AM +, Meral Shirazipour wrote: > I am

Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-tls-grease-03.txt

2019-08-23 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
e in the case this point is a problem. > > > > Ack. +Benjamin Kaduk , do you have preferences on this? I > don't think the requirements on "random" are particularly strong, so I > don't know if we should prescribe cryptographic randomness. At the same > time, it is perhap

Re: [Gen-art] [netmod] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-06

2019-03-08 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
Going up to a more general topic (and ignoring the particulars here): On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 05:50:00PM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote: > Thanks for the review! Comments inline. > > > On Mar 5, 2019, at 7:26 PM, Datatracker on behalf of Elwyn Davies > > wrote: > > > > > > Minor issues: > >

Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-24

2019-02-05 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 07:56:39PM -0800, Dino Farinacci wrote: > > Nits/editorial comments: Section 2: Get rid of everything except the last > > paragraph. > > Are you sure? I just followed what RFC 8174 suggested. Give me reason to not > follow it? Yes, he's sure. You pasted the text that

Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-curdle-gss-keyex-sha2-08.txt (details)

2019-01-09 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 03:34:55PM +0100, Francis Dupont 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 treat these comments just > like any other last call

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-richer-vectors-of-trust-11

2018-06-11 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
Hi Dale, On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 08:23:54PM -0700, Dale Worley wrote: > Reviewer: Dale Worley > Review result: Ready with Nits Thanks for doing the review. I couldn't tell if the body of it was supposed to be a copy of the document with the nits fixed, or if there was inline commentary that I

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

2018-02-27 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
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

2018-02-27 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
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] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-12

2018-02-26 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 11:03:07AM -0800, Dan Romascanu wrote: > > 1. CWT is derived from JWT (RFC 7519) using CBOR rather than JSON for > encoding. > The rationale as explained in the document is related to efficiency for some > IoT systems. The initial claims registry defined in Section 9.1 is

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

2018-02-26 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 11:19:04PM +0200, Dan Romascanu wrote: > Hi Jim, > > Thank you for your answer and for addressing my comments. > > On item #2: > > > > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Jim Schaad wrote: > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From:

Re: [Gen-art] [kitten] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06

2018-02-08 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
no such token is available. It > - MUST not be an empty array. When provided, the > + MUST NOT be an empty array. When provided, the > array will be cloned to protect against > subsequent modi

Re: [Gen-art] [kitten] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06

2018-02-07 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 05:43:58PM -0500, Greg Hudson wrote: > On 02/07/2018 04:32 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:> Line 2519, I think should [line 2519] > --> SHOULD, since elsewhere we use SHOULD > > for sending the error token to the peer. > > No opinion. You could make

Re: [Gen-art] [kitten] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06

2018-02-07 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
e able to sanity-check the above (and one below) comment? Thanks, Ben On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 11:35:34AM -0600, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > I am doing a review now. (Line 413, "SHOULD not" --> "SHOULD NOT" > is all I have so far.) > > And I will second Greg's com

Re: [Gen-art] [kitten] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06

2018-02-07 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
I am doing a review now. (Line 413, "SHOULD not" --> "SHOULD NOT" is all I have so far.) And I will second Greg's comment about this format being an awesome way to view these changes -- thank you again for putting them together! -Ben On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 10:17:35PM +0800, Weijun Wang wrote:

Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06

2018-01-02 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
p using RFC 2119 and leave all "must" and "required" in > > lowercase? > > > > Thanks > > Weijun > > > > > >> On Jan 3, 2018, at 9:49 AM, Joel M. Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com> wrote: > >> > >> Thanks Ben

Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-06

2018-01-02 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
Hi Joel, On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 03:30:31PM -0800, Joel Halpern wrote: > Reviewer: Joel Halpern > 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 for the IETF

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-kitten-krb-auth-indicator-04

2016-12-25 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
Hi Robert, Thanks for the review (I'm the shepherd, not the editor). On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 11:41:12AM -0800, Robert Sparks wrote: > 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

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-kitten-pkinit-freshness-07

2016-11-30 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 09:53:35PM +, Paul Miller (NT) wrote: > Minimum length is a problematic topic due to the fact that we intentionally > did not specify the format of the freshness token. Since the structure of > the freshness token is left up to the KDC, there is no good way to

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-kitten-rfc6112bis-02

2016-10-24 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016, Shawn M Emery wrote: > > Agreed, however I noticed another area that could use better 2119 language in > regards to this. Here are the proposed updates: > > OLD: > Care MUST be taken by the KDC not to reveal the client's identity in the > authorization data of the returned

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-kitten-rfc6112bis-02

2016-10-23 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
On Fri, 21 Oct 2016, Robert Sparks 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 treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-kitten-cammac-04

2015-12-02 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
Hi Meral, Thank you for the review. On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, Meral Shirazipour wrote: > Nits/editorial comments: > > [Page 3] 2nd and 3rd paragraph: The word "service" is used to designate > both the proxy-service and the second backend "application-service" as > per [MS-SFU]. This may confuse the

Re: [Gen-art] review: draft-ietf-kitten-gss-loop-04

2015-01-28 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
On Wed, 28 Jan 2015, Joel M. Halpern wrote: Summary: This document is ready for publication as an Informational RFC Major issues: N/A Minor issues: N/A Nits/editorial comments: Section 3.4 paragraph 2: It is likely appropriate for the acceptor to report this error condition to the

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat Call review of draft-ietf-kitten-cammac-00

2015-01-05 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
Hi Meral, An update is pending which should address your comments, along with some comments from the OPS-DIR reviewer and a couple of IESG members. The responsible AD has given a go-ahead to submit an update of the document. Thanks, Ben (document shepherd) On Mon, 5 Jan 2015, Meral