[Gen-art] review of draft-kornijenko-ivis-urn-00.txt

2006-04-25 Thread Francis Dupont
Summary: basically ready with nits I strongly recommend to convert the document to a tool like xml2rfc before to send it to the RFC editor! Other concerns: - the document should specify which kind of namespace registration is asked for (I've assume formal) - so there must be an IANA

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc3946bis-01.txt

2006-05-03 Thread Francis Dupont
Attached is my review of the specified document, submitted as part of the Gen-ART process. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html. Summary: ready Note I am not an expert in the domain (and the only person I trust in this role is

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-eac3-01.txt

2006-05-28 Thread Francis Dupont
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for draft-FOOBAR.txt. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Summary: ready Thanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] PS:

[Gen-art] review of draft-vaudreuil-futuredelivery-03.txt

2006-05-29 Thread Francis Dupont
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for draft-FOOBAR.txt. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Summary: ready with nits Thanks [EMAIL

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-46.txt

2006-07-06 Thread Francis Dupont
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-46.txt. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Summary: Ready with nits Some

Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-46.txt

2006-07-06 Thread Francis Dupont
In your previous mail you wrote: I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-46.txt. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-rddp-ddp-06.txt

2006-07-31 Thread Francis Dupont
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for draft-ietf-rddp-ddp-06.txt. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Summary: not Ready I have two main

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-rddp-rdmap-06.txt

2006-07-31 Thread Francis Dupont
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for draft-ietf-rddp-rdmap-06.txt. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Summary: not Ready I have the same

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-sieve-spamtestbis-05.txt

2006-08-02 Thread Francis Dupont
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for draft-ietf-sieve-spamtestbis-05.txt. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Summary: Ready Two

Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-rddp-ddp-06.txt

2006-08-31 Thread Francis Dupont
In your previous mail you wrote: As you suggested, I did contact the IESG, specifically the Security ADs, about IKEv1 vs. IKEv2, and the verdict is to stick with IKEv1 as profiled by RFC 3723 for iSCSI so that iSCSI and RDDP use the same profile of IPsec. If/when RFC 3723 is

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-mmusic-fec-grouping-05.txt

2006-09-04 Thread Francis Dupont
For IETF Last Call reviews: I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for draft-ietf-mmusic-fec-grouping-05.txt. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-experiments-03.txt

2006-09-09 Thread Francis Dupont
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-experiments-03.txt For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Summary: Ready Minor

[Gen-art] summary of draft-ietf-tsvwg-quickstart-06.txt review

2006-09-18 Thread Francis Dupont
About draft-ietf-tsvwg-quickstart-06.txt, the summary will be: Not Ready There is no real problem (yet :-) with the document but my comments won't be fixed without some editing... Of course, I'll try to send comments (at least the first comments) ASAP, and including to the authors. Regards

[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-quickstart-06.txt

2006-09-28 Thread Francis Dupont
-quickstart-06.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 28 sept 2006 IETF LC Date: 30 sept 2006 IESG Telechat date: not known yet Summary: Not Ready Comments: I have two major concerns and some minor comments: * the overview (section 2.1, pages 15-17) fails to introduce the real protocol

[Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-quickstart-06.txt

2006-10-03 Thread Francis Dupont
Thanks, I'll be happy to read the new version as soon as it'll be available. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

[Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-quickstart-06.txt

2006-10-03 Thread Francis Dupont
In your previous mail you wrote: We have one detail still to address from your review, and that is to add a citation about deleting IP options being forbidden, or supposed to be forbidden, for IPv6. Do you have a citation to suggest for that? = there is nothing very clear about

[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-behave-multicast-03.txt

2006-10-04 Thread Francis Dupont
-behave-multicast-03.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 3 oct 2006 IETF LC Date: 2 oct 2006 IESG Telechat date: not known yet Summary: Ready Comments: I have two very minor suggestions: - 2.1 page 4: in as if it was a host was - is (or were)? (I propose to let the RFC editor decide) - some

[Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-quickstart-06.txt

2006-10-09 Thread Francis Dupont
In your previous mail you wrote: I just submitted a revised version of the draft, and put a copy at: http://www.icir.org/floyd/papers/draft-ietf-tsvwg-quickstart-07.txt Let me know what you think. After you are done, then we can think about who to ask to read it from the ipv6

[Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-quickstart-06.txt

2006-10-09 Thread Francis Dupont
In your previous mail you wrote: I have not included anything about deleting IP options being forbidden in IPv6. It seems sufficient to me just to have the document say that the router, when it denies a Quick-Start request, SHOULD either delete the option or zero the relevant fields

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-isis-caps-06.txt

2006-10-30 Thread Francis Dupont
-caps-06.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 27 october 2006 IETF LC Date: 19 october 2006 IESG Telechat date: (if known) Summary: Ready with nits Comments: there are some little details which should be fixed (nothing critical and nothing which cannot be fixed by the RFC editor) : - 1 page

[Gen-art] last reviews

2006-11-01 Thread Francis Dupont
I have some unfilled reports in gen-art-by-reviewer.html: - draft-ietf-isis-caps-06.txt: done after the last update (summary: Ready with nits) - draft-ietf-behave-multicast-03.txt: summary: Ready - draft-ietf-rddp-rdmap-07.txt: updated after the review, the main issue, reference to the

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-netlmm-threats-04.txt

2006-11-15 Thread Francis Dupont
: draft-ietf-netlmm-threats-04.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 15 November 2006 IESG Telechat date: 16 November 2006 Summary: Ready Comments: I have some grammar questions which should be handled by the RFC Editor in 3.1 page 8: - can to trick - can trick - a variety of ... which make

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-nemo-terminology-06.txt

2006-12-02 Thread Francis Dupont
-terminology-06.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2006/12/1 IETF LC End Date: IESG Telechat date: 2006/11/30 Summary: Ready with nits Comments: I have many comments about language/wording, some have a technical impact but none is really critical: - in 1 page 4, 3.2 page 10, 4 page 11

[Gen-art] Re: review of draft-ietf-nemo-terminology-06.txt

2006-12-07 Thread Francis Dupont
In your previous mail you wrote: The definitions reads: 2.8. Correspondent Node (CN) Any node that is communicating with one or more MNNs. A CN could be either located within a fixed network or within another mobile network, and could be either fixed or mobile. So,

[Gen-art] (re)review of draft-ietf-rohc-rfc3095bis-framework-04.txt

2006-12-08 Thread Francis Dupont
-rfc3095bis-framework-04.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2006-12-08 IETF LC End Date: 2006-11-28 IESG Telechat date: 2006-12-14 Summary: Ready Comments: none (it is a rereview of a document which was already ready). Regards [EMAIL PROTECTED

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-smime-escertid-04.txt

2007-01-30 Thread Francis Dupont
-smime-escertid-04.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2007-01-30 IETF LC End Date: 2007-01-31 IESG Telechat date: 2007-02-02? Summary: Not Ready Comments: - a security consideration section is mandatory. - the introduction fails to explain how the hash is used even the idea is very simple

[Gen-art] review of draft-mcwalter-uri-mib-02.txt

2007-02-12 Thread Francis Dupont
-uri-mib-02.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2007-02-11 IETF LC End Date: 2007-03-08 IESG Telechat date: (if known) Summary: Almost Ready Comments: as already signaled this document has a real issue with its title. I recommend to take a model, for instance RFC 2851. Some minor details

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-mpls-icmp-08.txt

2007-03-07 Thread Francis Dupont
-icmp-08.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2007/03/07 IETF LC End Date: 2007/03/14 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Comments: I have no comment about the document itself (at the exception of IANA stuff which was already signaled and solved by IANA itself) but some concerns

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-avt-ulp-21.txt

2007-03-16 Thread Francis Dupont
-ulp-21.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2007-03-15 IETF LC End Date: 2007-04-03 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Comments: I have only a few minor editorial comments (which should be handled by the RFC editor): - 5 page 8 (section title): the usage is to put no space before

[Gen-art] review (summary) of draft-ietf-hip-mm-05.txt

2007-04-03 Thread Francis Dupont
: draft-ietf-hip-mm-05.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 03 April 2007 IESG Telechat date: 05 April 2007 Summary: Not Ready Comments: I'll send full comments in some hours (with a better network connection) but I have a real issue (so the summary) with the Abstract which IMHO is not coherent

[Gen-art] review (full) of draft-ietf-hip-mm-05.txt

2007-04-03 Thread Francis Dupont
: draft-ietf-hip-mm-05.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 03 April 2007 IESG Telechat date: 05 April 2007 Summary: Not Ready Comments: - as I wrote in the summary message, IMHO the abstract needs a full rewrite - in 5.4 page 31, I have a real concern with the new SPI value SHOULD

[Gen-art] Re: review (full) of draft-ietf-hip-mm-05.txt

2007-04-10 Thread Francis Dupont
In your previous mail you wrote: I discussed briefly with the authors. Your comment is consistent with some other recent comments that the draft does not fully specify a mobility and multihoming solution but only the readdressing mechanisms. = note that the only issue here is the

[Gen-art] review of draft-shacham-sipping-session-mobility-03.txt

2007-04-17 Thread Francis Dupont
: draft-shacham-sipping-session-mobility-03.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 17 April 2007 IESG Telechat date: 10 May 2007? Summary: Ready Comments: some details which should be handled by the RFC editor: - 2 page 4: expand PSTN abbrev at its first use. - I don't really like the last

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-addip-sctp-20.txt

2007-05-17 Thread Francis Dupont
-addip-sctp-20.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2007-05-16 IETF LC End Date: 2007-05-18 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Almost Ready Comments: I have only one major comment: the abstract doesn't reach the requirements for abstracts, in particular it is too short. I have no strong

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-ero-01.txt

2007-05-23 Thread Francis Dupont
: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-ero-01.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 21 May 2007 IETF LC End Date: 28 May 2007 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Comments: only editorial (i.e., to be handled by the RFC editor) comments: - 4 page 4 last sentence: either the wording is poor

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-mip4-fmipv4-07.txt

2007-06-03 Thread Francis Dupont
-fmipv4-07.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2007/06/01 IETF LC End Date: 2007/06/01 Summary: Ready Comments: some editorial (i.e., to be handled by the RFC editor) comments: at page 6 section 4.2: - in FA COA mode - in FA-COA mode - for the FSU field, I propose to add a MUST somewhere

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-rfc3682bis-09.txt

2007-06-11 Thread Francis Dupont
-rfc3682bis-09.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2007/06/10 IETF LC End Date: 2007/06/15 IESG Telechat date: not known Summary: Almost Ready Comments: I have only one major comment: the document does not explain it is a revision of RFC 3682, I propose to add a sentence at the beginning

[Gen-art] Re: [Mip6] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-mip6-cn-ipsec-05

2007-09-10 Thread Francis Dupont
In your previous mail you wrote: = I reply here because there is a common misconception in this comment. I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) An important requirement for IPsec-based protection of Mobile IPv6 route optimization is that the IPsec security

[Gen-art] Re: [Mip6] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-mip6-cn-ipsec-05

2007-09-11 Thread Francis Dupont
In your previous mail you wrote: = in fact the home address impersonation attack exists only in the mobile node - home agent case, not in the mobile node - correspondent case. If a node can use the address of another node to communicate with the correspondent, establish some

[Gen-art] Re: [Mip6] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-mip6-cn-ipsec-05

2007-09-12 Thread Francis Dupont
In your previous mail you wrote: an attacker can not do significantly more damage with a fake home address than with just a fake address. With IPsec alone, an attacker wouldn't be reachable if it used a fake IP address. This is different when you add Mobile IPv6 because the

[Gen-art] Re: [Mip6] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-mip6-cn-ipsec-05

2007-09-14 Thread Francis Dupont
In your previous mail you wrote: unless you bind the IPsec security association to the home address, an attacker could send a Binding Update message with a spoofed home address using its own IPsec SA. The correspondent node's IPsec instance would accept that message and hand it

[Gen-art] review of draft-shacham-sipping-session-mobility-04.txt

2007-09-20 Thread Francis Dupont
-sipping-session-mobility-04.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2007-09-20 IETF LC End Date: done IESG Telechat date: on next agenda Summary: Ready Comments: I have a few editorial comments: - ToC page 2 and 11 page 32: s/Acknowledgements/Acknowledgments/ - 1 page 4: s/teh/the/ - 3 page 5

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-rs-03.txt

2007-09-26 Thread Francis Dupont
-bb-fec-rs-03.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2007-09-26 IETF LC End Date: 2007-10-04 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Comments: I have only editorial (i.e., for the RFC editor) comments: - abstract page 2: s/FEC/Forward Error Correction (FEC)/ (IMHO it is needed even

[Gen-art] (full) review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-nfsdirect-06.txt

2007-10-12 Thread Francis Dupont
-nfsv4-nfsdirect-06.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2007-10-10 IETF LC End Date: 2007-10-12 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Almost ready Comments: I maintain my concern about the abbrevs in the Abstract even I recognize it is more from the way the nfsv4 stuff is cut out in several

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-simple-partial-publish-06.txt

2007-10-17 Thread Francis Dupont
-simple-partial-publish-06.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2007-10-16 IETF LC End Date: none IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Comments: only minor editorial stuff which should be handled by the RFC editor (i.e., please don't rush to your keyboard :-): - Abstract page 2: to constitue

[Gen-art] review (summary) of draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-tc-mib-12.txt

2007-11-07 Thread Francis Dupont
-pwe3-pw-tc-mib-12.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2007-11-06 IETF LC Date: 2007-11-09 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Comments: I have to run MIB doctor co on the document but IMHO there are only minor editorial concerns (i.e., things which should be handled by the RFC editor

[Gen-art] Re: review of draft-ietf-sip-multiple-refer-02.txt

2007-11-28 Thread Francis Dupont
In your previous mail you wrote: Comments: the comments are editorial, i.e., they enter in the kind of things which can be handled by the RFC Editor: - 2 page 3: according to the Introduction the REFER-recipient should be a server, not a user agent, i.e., either I've

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-ipdvb-ule-ext-06.txt

2007-12-15 Thread Francis Dupont
-ipdvb-ule-ext-06.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2007-12-13 IETF LC End Date: 2007-12-17 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Almost Ready Comments: I have many editorial comments so even they can be handled by the RFC Editor IMHO you could publish a new version of the document. In details

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-reqts-03.txt

2007-12-21 Thread Francis Dupont
-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-reqts-03.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2007-12-21 IETF LC End Date: IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Comments: some editorial comments to leasve to the RFC Editor: - Abstract page 1: A MPLS-TE - An MPLS-TE - 1 page 3: the top of the page 3 has

[Gen-art] review of draft-simon-emu-rfc2716bis-12.txt

2008-01-09 Thread Francis Dupont
-rfc2716bis-12.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2008-01-09 IETF LC Date: 2007-12-27 IESG Telechat date: 2008-01-10 Summary: Ready Comments: I have some editorial comments (editorial means they should be handled by the RFC Editor): - 2.1 page 4: s/backend security server/backend

[Gen-art] review of draft-daboo-imap-annotatemore-12.txt

2008-01-15 Thread Francis Dupont
-imap-annotatemore-12.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2008-01-14 IETF LC End Date: 2008-01-30 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Comments: Some editorial (i.e., to be handled by the RFC Editor) comments: - Abstract page 1: add (IMAP) after Internet Message Access Protocol - 3.3

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-10.txt

2008-01-30 Thread Francis Dupont
-hiopt-10.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2008-01-30 IETF LC End Date: 2008-02-04 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Not ready Comments: I have three series of comments: editorial (which should be handled by the RFC editor but you may fix them if (and only if) you publish a new version

[Gen-art] about draft-ietf-ipdvb-ule-ext-07.txt

2008-02-04 Thread Francis Dupont
The preceeding version, draft-ietf-ipdvb-ule-ext-06.txt, was reviewed last year with the Almost Ready summary because of the large number of editorial comments. As the remaining/missed editorial issues should be handled by the RFC Editor, IMHO the document is now Ready. Thanks [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[Gen-art] review of draft-vanelburg-sipping-served-user-04.txt

2008-02-12 Thread Francis Dupont
-sipping-served-user-04.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2008-02-12 IETF LC End Date: 2008-02-04 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Almost Ready Comments: I have many editorial comments so it is perhaps a good idea to publish a new version and not to rely on the RFC Editor: - TOC page

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-nfsdirect-07.txt

2008-03-21 Thread Francis Dupont
-nfsv4-nfsdirect-07.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2008-03-21 IETF LC End Date: 2008-03-26 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Comments: some editorial comments (editorial == to be handled by the RFC Editor by default) and 3 questions (with positive answers): - first question

Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-nfsdirect-07.txt

2008-04-17 Thread Francis Dupont
In your previous mail you wrote: At 11:57 AM 3/21/2008, Francis Dupont wrote: I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft ... Editorial: - 3 page 3, etc: about the case of read/write: operations should get all uppercase, list

[Gen-art] review of draft-snell-atompub-bidi-06.txt

2008-04-23 Thread Francis Dupont
-atompub-bidi-06.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2008-04-22 IETF LC End Date: 2008-05-09 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Comments: one comment and two questions, all are editorial so have to be handled by the RFC Editor: - in ToC (page 2) and Appendix (page 6): Acknowledgements

Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-nfsdirect-07.txt

2008-04-25 Thread Francis Dupont
In your previous mail you wrote: Francis: -08 is on the Telechat for this week. Please check if your concerns were resolved. = they were (BTW they were editorial) so I keep the Ready summary. Thanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] PS: I copy my answer to the gen-art list for the

Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-vanelburg-sipping-served-user-04.txt

2008-05-07 Thread Francis Dupont
In your previous mail you wrote: Francis: Does -05 resolve your concerns? Russ = yes, they are editorial comments... I change the summary to Ready. Thansk [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 06:59 PM 2/12/2008, Francis Dupont wrote: Document: draft-vanelburg-sipping-served

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-pim-lasthop-threats-04.txt

2008-05-20 Thread Francis Dupont
-lasthop-threats-04.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2008-05-19 IETF LC End Date: 2008-05-23 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Comments: mainly editorial comments, i.e., should be handled by the RFC Editor: - ToC and section 5 page 11: Acknowledgements - Acknowledgments

[Gen-art] review of draft-kato-ipsec-camellia-modes-07.txt

2008-05-26 Thread Francis Dupont
-ipsec-camellia-modes-07.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2008-05-23 IETF LC End Date: 2008-06-10 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Not ready Comments: my main concern is about the organization of the different camellia mode/ipsec documents, for instance why the CTR and CCM modes

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-bfd-multihop-06.txt

2008-06-05 Thread Francis Dupont
: draft-ietf-bfd-multihop-06.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2008-06-03 IESG Telechat date: 05 June 2008 Summary: Almost ready Comments: my concerns are editorial but as one is about the structure of the document I can't assume you can leave them to the RFC Editor: - 3.2 page 3

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-atm-mib-05.txt

2008-06-26 Thread Francis Dupont
-pw-atm-mib-05.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2008-06-24 IETF LC End Date: 2008-06-24 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Not Ready Comments: I have (too) many editorial concerns. Even the MIB part is to be processed by machines (vs. humans) it should be written with a minimal care

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-isis-rfc2763bis-00.txt

2008-06-26 Thread Francis Dupont
-rfc2763bis-00.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2008-06-25 IETF LC End Date: 2008-06-23 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Almost Ready Comments: I have some editorial concerns: - first, as it is an update it should be fine to provided a temporary (i.e., marked as to be removed before

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-capwap-dhc-ac-option-01.txt

2008-07-11 Thread Francis Dupont
-capwap-dhc-ac-option-01.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2008-07-10 IETF LC End Date: 2008-07-14 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready with nits Comments: I have two general questions and the usual editioral things (here editorial means they can be handled by the RFC Editor

Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-capwap-dhc-ac-option-01.txt

2008-07-13 Thread Francis Dupont
In your previous mail you wrote: - in TOC and section 6: Acknowledgements - Acknowledgments PRC I think perhaps your version is the queen's english, while mine is the one accepted in the US :( = there is no (not yet?) gen-art review FAQ but if the two spelling exist the RFC Editor

[Gen-art] draft-ietf-pce-interas-pcecp-reqs-06.txt

2008-07-24 Thread Francis Dupont
-interas-pcecp-reqs-06.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2008-07-24 IETF LC End Date: 2008-07-31 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Comments: some edtorial problems and suggestions (editorial means they can be handled my the RFC Editor): - 1 page 2: the LSP abbrev should

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-tc-mib-14.txt

2008-08-19 Thread Francis Dupont
-pw-tc-mib-14.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2008-08-19 IETF LC End Date: 2008-08-14 IESG Telechat date: 2008-08-14 Summary: Almost Ready Comments: I apologize for this late review (I lost the disk of my laptop). I share the concern about the naming of some textual conventions: - extra

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-dime-diameter-api-07.txt

2008-08-21 Thread Francis Dupont
-diameter-api-07.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2008-08-20 IETF LC End Date: 2008-08-08 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Not Ready Comments: my main concern is the API as it is described up to section 3.7 is clearly impossible to implement so I strongly suggest to add soon

[Gen-art] review of draft-daboo-imap-annotatemore-15.txt

2008-10-23 Thread Francis Dupont
-annotatemore-15.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2008-10-22 IETF LC End Date: 2008-11-13 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Comments: some editorial details which should be handled by the RFC Editor: - 3.3 page 6: anotation - annotation - 4.1 page : I have a problem

[Gen-art] concerning draft-ietf-smime-ibearch-09.txt

2008-11-07 Thread Francis Dupont
I reviewed for the gen-art the version 05 of this document. My main concern, the missing ASN.1 summary, was addressed and no more stands for an informational document (but please keep it :-). Almost all other comments were editorial, BTW the last one (add USA in Author's Addresses page 34) still

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-igp-sync-03.txt

2008-11-13 Thread Francis Dupont
-ldp-igp-sync-03.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2008-11-12 IETF LC End Date: 2008-11-18 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Almost Ready Comments: I have many editorial concerns: - Abstract page 1: use of abbrevs (LSP, LDP, VPN, IGP). IMHO only IP and MPLS are supposed to be known

Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-smime-3851bis-08.txt

2008-11-17 Thread Francis Dupont
In your previous mail you wrote: I checked with some people on renaming the receipentKeyId field to recipientKeyid, and it's a no go. That name is used by compilers to name C code and changing it is going to cause problems. It's also been mispelled since about 1999 and nobody has

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-admitted-realtime-dscp-05.txt

2008-11-19 Thread Francis Dupont
-admitted-realtime-dscp-05.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2008-11-19 IETF LC End Date: 2008-11-27 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Comments: I have minor editorial (== to be handled by default by the RFC Editor) concerns and proposals (ending by '?'): - ToC page 2

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-pkix-ecc-subpubkeyinfo-10.txt

2008-12-05 Thread Francis Dupont
: draft-ietf-pkix-ecc-subpubkeyinfo-10.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2008-12-03 IETF LC End Date: 2008-12-09 IESG Telechat date: 1008-12-18 Summary: Ready Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: - the Abstract mentions RFC 3279 when the body of the document uses

[Gen-art] about draft-daboo-imap-annotatemore-16.txt

2008-12-05 Thread Francis Dupont
I have no reason to change my review (of the -15 version) summary from Ready to something else. BTW I maintain my *minor* editorial concerns in 4.1 page 7 (spurious minimum words) and 4.2.2 page 10 (e.g. without the mandatory ','). Regards [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-framework-05.txt

2008-12-16 Thread Francis Dupont
In your previous mail you wrote: the document is very unpleasant to read That would have to be regarded as a comment which is not actionable ;-) = if you find a magical way to improve the wording it should be very great (as a not native English writer I understand the issue but

[Gen-art] review of draft-andreasen-sipping-rfc3603bis-07.txt

2008-12-29 Thread Francis Dupont
-andreasen-sipping-rfc3603bis-07.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2008-12-24 IETF LC End Date: 2009-01-10 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Comments: some minor editorial concerns (i.e, to be fixed bt the RFC Editor): - Abstract page 2: please remove (SIP) [RFC3261] (the Abstract

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gr-description-03.txt

2009-01-15 Thread Francis Dupont
-ccamp-gr-description-03.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2009-01-15 IETF LC End Date: 2009-01-20 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Major issues: none Minor issues: there are 4 authors in 11 (Authors' Addresses) but 3 only in front (first page). I am afraid Snigdho Bardalai

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-ccamp-path-key-ero-03.txt

2009-01-29 Thread Francis Dupont
-ccamp-path-key-ero-03.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2009-01-27 IETF LC End Date: 2009-02-03 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Major issues: None Minor issues: IMHO it is just a typo but in 4 page 9: DNS - DoS Nits/editorial comments: - 7.1 page 12: Singlaling - Siglaling

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-source-attributes-02.txt

2009-02-06 Thread Francis Dupont
-mmusic-sdp-source-attributes-02.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2009-02-05 IETF LC End Date: 2009-02-09 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: - Abstract page 1: The Session Description Protocol - ... (SDP) - 3 page

[Gen-art] about draft-ietf-ccamp-gr-description-04.txt

2009-02-11 Thread Francis Dupont
All (minor/editorial) comments about the previous version were solved. I maintain the Ready summary. Regards francis.dup...@fdupont.fr ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

[Gen-art] review of draft-iana-rfc3330bis-06.txt

2009-04-06 Thread Francis Dupont
-rfc3330bis-06.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2009-04-03 IETF LC End Date: 2009-04-18 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: I have two concerns about the Abstract: - the first sentence This document obsoletes RFC

[Gen-art] about draft-ietf-ccamp-path-key-ero-04.txt

2009-04-06 Thread Francis Dupont
I reviewed the version 03, I keep the Ready summary. Regards francis.dup...@fdupont.fr PS: the spelling error in 7.1 page 12 only changed, correct spelling (checked twice as it seems really hard to type :-) is: signaling (leave it to the RFC Editor...)

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-te-mib-08.txt (summary)

2009-04-16 Thread Francis Dupont
-mpls-p2mp-te-mib-08.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2009-04-16 IETF LC End Date: 2009-04-17 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Regards francis.dup...@fdupont.fr PS: I'll send full comments tomorrow morning. ___ Gen-art mailing list

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-te-mib-08.txt (full)

2009-04-17 Thread Francis Dupont
-mpls-p2mp-te-mib-08.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2009-04-16 IETF LC End Date: 2009-04-17 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: - Abstract: add '(MIB)' as it is done in the introduction - Abstract: if you need

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-04.txt

2009-04-23 Thread Francis Dupont
-pce-monitoring-04.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2009-04-22 IETF LC End Date: 2009-04-27 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Not Ready Major issues: none but some minor issues which should need another cycle. Minor issues: - 1 page 5: as the PCReq/PCReq seem to come from nowhere

[Gen-art] draft-ietf-sipping-update-pai-09.txt

2009-05-07 Thread Francis Dupont
-sipping-update-pai-09.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2009-05-06 IETF LC End Date: 2009-05-11 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Major issues: none Minor issues: IMHO the Abstract should be reworded a bit before publication (RFC Editor could handle this) Nits/editorial comments

[Gen-art] draft-ietf-sipping-update-pai-09.txt (resent)

2009-05-07 Thread Francis Dupont
-sipping-update-pai-09.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2009-05-06 IETF LC End Date: 2009-05-11 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Major issues: none Minor issues: IMHO the Abstract should be reworded a bit before publication (RFC Editor could handle this) Nits/editorial comments

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-isms-secshell-16.txt (partial)

2009-05-07 Thread Francis Dupont
: draft-ietf-isms-secshell-16.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2009-05-07 IESG Telechat date: 07 May 2009 Summary: none as draft-ietf-isms-secshell-17.txt was published before I finished the review... Comments are about the not-MIB part (i.e., not the section 7) and of course about

[Gen-art] draft-ietf-sip-eku-05.txt

2009-06-08 Thread Francis Dupont
-sip-eku-05.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2009-06-02 IETF LC End Date: 2009-06-05 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: (I apologize to have been late to send this review) - 1.2 page 3: X.680 [5],X.690 [6]. - X.680

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-sipping-cc-framework-11.txt

2009-06-09 Thread Francis Dupont
-sipping-cc-framework-11.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2009-06-09 IETF LC End Date: 2009-06-09 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: - in Abstract page 2: SIP - Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) - ToC page 3: Far

Re: [Gen-art] draft-ietf-sip-eku-05.txt

2009-06-10 Thread Francis Dupont
In your previous mail you wrote: - 3 page 4: the application need not recognize - needs??? (BTW the spelling error, if it is an error, is in RFC 5280) I believe that in this context, need is grammatically correct -- needs not recognize... does not seem to read very

[Gen-art] review of draft-iana-rfc3330bis-07.txt

2009-07-08 Thread Francis Dupont
-rfc3330bis-07.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2009-07-06 IETF LC End Date: 2009-07-22 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: I have still (cf review of the 06 version) two concerns about the Abstract: - the first

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-simple-xcap-diff-13.txt

2009-07-16 Thread Francis Dupont
-simple-xcap-diff-13.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2009-07-15 IETF LC End Date: 3009-07-22 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: - 3 page 6: i.e. - i.e., - 3 pages 7 and 8: endoced - encoded - 4 pages 8-10: I am

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-hokey-key-mgm-08.txt

2009-08-03 Thread Francis Dupont
-hokey-key-mgm-08.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2009-07-30 IETF LC End Date: 2009-08-03 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Major issues: None Minor issues: I understand this specification is very abstract about on wire entities (for instance there is nothing about encoding

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-pkix-authorityclearanceconstraints-02.txt

2009-08-12 Thread Francis Dupont
-pkix-authorityclearanceconstraints-02.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2009-08-10 IETF LC End Date: 2009-08-14 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Not Ready Major issues: the I-D is too hard to read Minor issues: - IMHO a transition paragraph is needed at the end of the Introduction

Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-pkix-authorityclearanceconstraints-02.txt

2009-08-16 Thread Francis Dupont
In your previous mail you wrote: Minor issues: - IMHO a transition paragraph is needed at the end of the Introduction in order to introduce technical dependencies: * clearance attribute is in fact from 3281bis (this is obvious when one reads the ASN.1 module appendix

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute-04.txt

2009-09-07 Thread Francis Dupont
comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute-04.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2009-08-31 IETF LC End Date: 2009-08-31 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Major issues: none Minor issues: none Nits/editorial comments: - ToC page 2 and 8 page 12: Author's

Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute-04.txt

2009-09-29 Thread Francis Dupont
In your previous mail you wrote: = oops, catching an old message. - 2.2 page 6 and 2.3 page 6: conformant - compliant Why? = just because conformant is not in my dictionary, compliant is and is supposed to mean the same thing... Now my dictionary is not universal and is

  1   2   3   4   >