Re: [Gen-art] [OPSAWG] some YANG thoughts on draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access-03

On 04.01.22 18:02, tom petch wrote: *From:* Eliot Lear *Sent:* Tuesday, January 04, 2022 16:28 *To:* tom petch; gen-art@ietf.org; Russ Housley *Cc:* draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access@ietf.org; ops...@ietf.org *Subject:* Re: [OPSAWG] some YANG thoughts on draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access-03 Hi

Re: [Gen-art] [OPSAWG] some YANG thoughts on draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access-03

Hi Tom, Thanks for your review.  Please see below. On 14.12.21 11:15, tom petch wrote: From: OPSAWG on behalf of Russ Housley via Datatracker Sent: 13 December 2021 22:02 Subject: [OPSAWG] Genart early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access-03 Reviewer: Russ Housley Review result: Almost

Re: [Gen-art] [OPSAWG] Genart early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access-03

Hi Russ, And thanks for your review. Please see below. On 13.12.21 23:02, Russ Housley via Datatracker wrote: Reviewer: Russ Housley Review result: Almost Ready I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed

Re: [Gen-art] [Tzdist-bis] Genart last call review of draft-murchison-tzdist-tzif-14

Hi Dale, Thanks for the review.  I know Paul has some comments, but here are mine. On 01.10.18 04:42, Dale Worley wrote: > Reviewer: Dale Worley > 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

Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20

Hi Robert and everyone else, Circling for a landing here... On 11.04.18 18:15, Robert Sparks wrote: > With this, I'm puzzled about the use of the word standardized at all. > I think I'm hearing that you expect MUD controllers to know about some > well-known classes by convention and that groups

Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20

All the way down... On 11.04.18 18:15, Robert Sparks wrote: > >> >> Similarly, the use of the word standardized naked like that is >> probably unhelpful. > Can I infer you plan to edit it out or dress it more? Yes. >> One could imagine, for instance, Fairhair or some other consortium >>

Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20

Hi Robert, A few additional comments below: On 10.04.18 16:22, Robert Sparks wrote: > > > > On 4/10/18 5:43 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: >> >> Hi Robert and thanks again for the review.  Please see below for >> responses.  These are my personal views.  The WG chairs / s

Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20

Hi Robert and thanks again for the review.  Please see below for responses.  These are my personal views.  The WG chairs / shepherds may have different opinions. On 09.04.18 19:57, Robert Sparks wrote: > Reviewer: Robert Sparks > Review result: Ready with Issues > > I am the assigned Gen-ART

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-11

I wrote: On 29.01.18 23:07, Eliot Lear wrote: > > The line in question is as follows: > >   This includes, >   but is not limited to, native and unmodified IPv4 and IPv6 >   connectivity, global reachability, and no additional limitation >   that wo

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-11

Hi Alissa, On 30.01.18 16:54, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>> 'It is anticipated that >>> those roles will evolve. The IASA MUST keep the >>> community informed in this regard, and MAY do so without updating >>> this memo.' >> I don't think the MUST significantly changes the meaning, so I'm

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-11

Ok.  I'll push an update based on these changes in the next few days, barring additional comments. On 30.01.18 17:02, Dan Romascanu wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 5:54 PM, Alissa Cooper > wrote: > > > > On Jan 29, 2018, at 1:12 PM, Pete

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-11

Hi Pete and thanks Dan for the review.  Please see below. On 29.01.18 19:12, Pete Resnick wrote: > Dan, > > Thanks so much for the thorough review. I'll try to get each of these > into the issues list. Comments inline: > > On 24 Jan 2018, at 11:46, Dan Romascanu wrote: > >> Reviewer: Dan

Re: [Gen-art] Genart early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-08

Hi Robert, Thanks now for BOTH of your reviews.  I've a number of proposals below. On 9/7/17 5:51 PM, Robert Sparks wrote: > There is one aspect of caching semantics we should probably capture, > which is that the cache-validity period should exceed the HTTP cache > or expiry period as

Re: [Gen-art] Genart early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-08

Robert, As I wrote earlier, this was a great review.  Thanks for that.  Please see below. On 8/30/17 7:21 PM, Robert Sparks wrote: > Reviewer: Robert Sparks > Review result: Almost Ready > > This is an exciting concept, and the draft overall is approachable. I > have identified a few areas I

Re: [Gen-art] [OPSAWG] Genart early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-08

Hi Ranga, Robert wrote a great review, and I'll respond to him in due course with suggested changes.  I wanted to take just a moment to comment to you on your point: On 8/31/17 12:00 AM, M. Ranganathan wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Robert Sparks

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-tzdist-service-08

Hi Russ and thanks for the review. Cyrus is going to answer you on these. But I have three comments, below: On 6/5/15 10:09 PM, Russ Housley wrote: I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art last call review of draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-16

Hi, On 1/20/15 8:17 AM, Martin Thomson wrote: On 19 January 2015 at 02:37, Elwyn Davies elw...@dial.pipex.com wrote: Summary: Almost ready. A well written document with just a few nits really. I am slightly surprised (having not been following httpbis in detail) that HTTP/2 is so tightly

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-06

Hi Christer, Thank you for your review. On 12/9/14, 12:50 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote: General: -- Q_1: In Section 2, the IETF reply text sometimes uses we to refer to IETF. I think it would be good to say IETF. For example: We consider .ARPA part -

Re: [Gen-art] [imapext] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-qresync-rfc5162bis-09

Alexey, On 1/28/14, 9:37 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: I think David's right that some version of what Eliot said: there is a requirement for strict syntax parsing. If the client blows it in any way, the server SHOULD return an error with a BAD response. ...should be added to the section

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-qresync-rfc5162bis-09

Hi Dave, First, thank you for your review. I personally appreciate to the time you put in to all of your reviews. On 1/27/14, 3:06 AM, Black, David wrote: I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

Re: [Gen-art] [imapext] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-qresync-rfc5162bis-09

Hi Barry, Dave, and Alexey, On 1/27/14, 8:59 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: Actually, I think I convinced Barry that it is updating RFC 2683. Yes: because the new line-length-limit recommendation is meant to apply whether or not condstore or qresync are in play, this updates remains (it's the others

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-Art telechat review of draft-farrell-perpass-attack-04

Jari, I oppose changes made to the document in the last round as stated below. If they remain, I would urge publication as Informational and not BCP: In particular, architectural decisions, including which existing technology is re-used, may significantly impact the vulnerability of

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-kitten-sasl-openid-06.txt

Hi Brian, Apologies for the belated review. Please see comments below. On 7/22/64 8:33 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Please see attached review. some sort of... any number of ways This is very loose language for a standards-track draft. I don't know what to suggest but it just seems too

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-lear-iana-timezone-database-03

Hi Elwyn, Thank you again for the review. Please see below. Summary: Almost ready for the IESG. This is my second review of the document. I suggested in the previous review that it might make life easier, particularly if an appeal was ever entered, if the document didn't use the RFC

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-lear-iana-timezone-database-01

Elwyn, SM, Thank you for your reviews. Here is my current thinking: 1. There was probably some confusion in that we probably meant section 5.2 and not 5.3 in RFC 5226. Nevertheless, I find RFC 5226 difficult to apply here because of the way it is worded. Specifically, it is designed for

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-dusseault-http-patch-15.txt

On 11/15/09 11:54 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: On Nov 15, 2009, at 12:03 PM, John C Klensin wrote: Hi. fwiw, I find myself strongly agreeing with what I believe is Brian's main point, although what I infer from it may be a little different from what he does (or may not... I'm not sure): We

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-dusseault-http-patch-15.txt

Brian, As far as I can tell, the proposal places the burden for ensuring atomicity entirely on the server. However, PATCH is explicitly not idempotent. If a client issues a PATCH, and the server executes the PATCH, but the client then fails to receive an indication of success due to an

[Gen-art] Re: genart review Re: [IANA #48214] RE: Last Call: 'A Timezone Option for DHCP' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dhc-timezone-option)

Dear Eric, Thank you for your review. Please see the attached note from IANA. Can you assist me in reconciling your note and theirs? If I read their note correctly, they have sufficient information. Is this not the case? Eliot Eric Gray (LO/EUS) wrote: I have been selected as the