Re: [Gen-art] [Stox] Gen-ART review for draft-ietf-stox-core-07

;This document > provides information for a series of SIP-XMPP interworking specifications' How about s/inaugurates/provides the basis for/ ? Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] [Jcardcal] Genart LC review: draft-ietf-jcardcal-jcal-09

On 3/20/14, 4:34 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: On 3/20/14 5:20 PM, Robert Sparks wrote: (This may be more than a nit): In the ABNF in section 3.6.5, where is the implementer supposed to go to find the definition of 'zone'? (Or the other production names?) I think _this_ chunk of ABNF (as opposed to th

Re: [Gen-art] [Jcardcal] Genart LC review: draft-ietf-jcardcal-jcal-09

On 3/20/14, 5:22 PM, Philipp Kewisch wrote: On 3/21/14, 12:04 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 3/20/14, 4:34 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: HmmI wonder why neither RFC 5545 nor this document reference RFC 3339 instead of ISO 8601? That would get you all of the ABNF you need. That's a good

Re: [Gen-art] [Jcardcal] Genart LC review: draft-ietf-jcardcal-jcal-09

On 3/26/14, 5:31 AM, Philipp Kewisch wrote: I have just uploaded a new version of the document, it contains all considerations from the Gen-ART and secdir review, as well as changes based on the IESG evaluations. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-jcardcal-jcal-10.txt There are stil

Re: [Gen-art] [Jcardcal] Genart LC review: draft-ietf-jcardcal-jcal-09

On 3/27/14, 11:19 AM, Philipp Kewisch wrote: On Mar 27, 2014, at 17:58, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 3/26/14, 5:31 AM, Philipp Kewisch wrote: I have just uploaded a new version of the document, it contains all considerations from the Gen-ART and secdir review, as well as changes based on the

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-precis-framework-15

Hi Tom, thanks for the review and for the kind words about the document. Peter On 4/13/14, 3:00 PM, Tom Taylor wrote: I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at . This document is

Re: [Gen-art] [xmpp] Gen-ART review for draft-ietf-xmpp-websocket-07

On 7/8/14, 12:51 AM, Lance Stout wrote: I would like to see some thoughts from the editors regarding the two points that you raised. Hrm, did my earlier response on the 3rd not make it through moderation to the gen-art list? 1. In order to accommodate the Websocket binding this document

Re: [Gen-art] [xmpp] Gen-ART review for draft-ietf-xmpp-websocket-07

Hi Dan, As the document shepherd for this spec and the author of RFC 6120, I have one comment below. On 7/8/14, 3:06 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: Hi Jari, The authors actually responded - see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg10306.html. They pushed back on my #1 -

Re: [Gen-art] [xmpp] Gen-ART review for draft-ietf-xmpp-websocket-07

On 7/9/14, 7:16 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: OK, I accept this, but in this case the text in the I-D should probably be worded slightly different: > > The WebSocket XMPP sub-protocol deviates from the standard method of > >constructing and using XML streams as defined in [RFC6120] by

Re: [Gen-art] [Ice] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ice-trickle-16

On 2/11/18 5:54 AM, Roni Even wrote: > Reviewer: Roni Even > Review result: Ready with Nits > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-hakala-urn-nbn-rfc3188bis-00

On 5/1/18 12:35 PM, Robert Sparks wrote: > Reviewer: Robert Sparks > 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 Chair. Please treat these com

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-hakala-urn-nbn-rfc3188bis-00

On 5/1/18 1:24 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 5/1/18 12:35 PM, Robert Sparks wrote: >> Reviewer: Robert Sparks >> Review result: Ready with Issues >> >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area >> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IET

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-hakala-urn-nbn-rfc3188bis-00

Robert, some fixes were posted over the weekend - if you have a chance, please check the diff here: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-hakala-urn-nbn-rfc3188bis-01.txt Thanks! Peter On 5/1/18 12:35 PM, Robert Sparks wrote: > Reviewer: Robert Sparks > Review result: Ready with Issues > >

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-hakala-urn-nbn-rfc3188bis-00

ed others - I'm not easily seeing what > drove the decision in each spot. That said, per John's note, it's a > conscious decision of the folks working on the document to use 2119 this > way, so I'll let it go. > > RJS > > > On 6/4/18 9:47 AM, Peter Saint-A

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-mile-xmpp-grid-09

Inline. On 3/4/19 11:25 AM, Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing) wrote: > Thanks Alissa and Christer, please see further comments below:  > >   > > On 1/4/19, 4:31 AM, "Christer Holmberg" > wrote: > >   > >     Reviewer: Christer Holmberg > >     Review result: Ready with Issues > >     > > I a

[Gen-art] Re: GenART review of draft-saintandre-xmpp-iri-03

"" and add an RFC Editor note > to tell the RFC Editor to replace "" with the number of the published > RFC and delete the note. The xml2rfc tool outputs "" for the &rfc.number; entity so I'll hand-edit the TXT output and add the note.

[Gen-art] Re: GenART review of draft-saintandre-xmpp-iri-03

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Update at bottom. Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > Thanks for the review. Comments inline. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> Background for those who may be unaware of GenART: >>> >>> GenART is the Area Review Team for

[Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART Review of draft-saintandre-xmpp-urn-02

t which Jeremie will not control the jabber.org domain, but that is possible and in any case that domain is not associated at all with the XSF. I saw Sam's original DISCUSS (now held by Ted), and suspect that I would be happy with any resolution of that DISCUSS. Thanks for the review. P

Re: FW: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-saintandre-rfc4622bis-01

Vijay K. Gurbani wrote: > Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>> 3) In S2.7.2 and S2.8.2, XMPP addresses continue to the next line. >>> Do you need LWS at the beginning of the second line to denote >>> continuation? >> >> It's not clear to me how best to repre

Re: FW: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-saintandre-rfc4622bis-01

Thank you for the review. I'm moving email addresses right now, so replying from my new address. Comments inline. Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > - Forwarded message from "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - > > From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[EMA

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-20.txt

Hi Miguel, I expressed exactly this concern in my DISCUSS on this I-D. During the IESG telechat last Thursday, Michelle Cotton of the IANA explained that: (1) there is agreement to try this approach for this registry (2) the RFC Editor and the IANA are in agreement here (3) proposed changes to RF

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-20.txt

On 6/22/10 12:03 AM, Miguel A. Garcia wrote: > Hi Peter: > > There are two aspects of this proposal: > > a) Whether IANA accepts the change in the process to bring the experts > prior to modifications > b) A sentiment that the RFC process, in particular the involvement of > experts in the RFC pro

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-moriarty-post-inch-rid-11

Thanks, I've cleared. On 7/6/10 11:06 AM, moriarty_kathl...@emc.com wrote: > Hello, > > I posted a new version that should resolve all outstanding comments. > Please let me know if any further changes are suggested/required. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-moriarty-post-inch-rid/ > >

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis-19

Hi Elwyn, thank you for reviewing this long document on such short notice. I'm cc'ing x...@ietf.org to keep the XMPP WG in the loop, as well as i...@ietf.org. On 11/29/10 6:21 PM, "Elwyn Davies" wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see t

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-xmpp-address-07

[cc'ing x...@ietf.org and i...@ietf.org] On 11/30/10 3:43 AM, "Elwyn Davies" 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>. > > Please wait for direction from your docum

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis-19 (updated)

Hi Elwyn, unfortunately I replied to your original message, not the updated one. I've run a diff between the two and here reply only to the points raised in your updated text. On 11/30/10 3:12 AM, "Elwyn Davies" wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check-11

Hi Ben, thanks for the review. [ + cer...@ietf.org ] On 12/3/10 2:24 PM, "Ben Campbell" wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > . > > Please resolve these comments

Re: [Gen-art] [certid] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check-11

On 12/6/10 6:00 PM, =JeffH wrote: > a followup on aspects of PeterSA's response.. Thanks, Jeff. A few comments inline from your co-author. :) > Peter Saint-Andre replied.. >> >> On 12/3/10 2:24 PM, "Ben Campbell" wrote: >> > > thanks for the r

Re: [Gen-art] [certid] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check-11

ologies such as [S-NAPTR]), for our purposes we care only about the fact that the client needs to verify the identity of the entity with which it communicates as a result of the resolution process. The resolution process itself is out of scope. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https:/

Re: [Gen-art] [certid] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check-11

On 12/7/10 8:01 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > [[ Much abbreviated ]] > > At 9:10 PM -0700 12/6/10, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>>>> -- 3.1, rule 6: >>>>> >>>>> Can you motivate why this is not a MUST NOT? >>> The reason for allowing this

Re: [Gen-art] [certid] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check-11

s verification to DNS domain names, thereby differentiating a URI-ID from a uniformResourceIdentifier entry that contains an IP address or a mere host name, or that does not contain an "authority" component at all.). Furthermore, note that extraction of the "

Re: [Gen-art] [certid] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check-11

m doing lots of arm-waving around > whats-really-going-on with URI-IDs and SIP. If we need a higher > bandwidth communication, I can be available.) > > Comments inline: > > On Dec 7, 2010, at 4:14 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > >> Hi Ben, I've looked again at

Re: [Gen-art] [certid] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check-11

On 12/7/10 6:35 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: > > On Dec 6, 2010, at 7:00 PM, =JeffH wrote: > >> Peter Saint-Andre replied.. >>> >>> On 12/3/10 2:24 PM, "Ben Campbell" wrote: >>>> -- 3.1, 1st paragraph: >>>> >>>> It&

Re: [Gen-art] [certid] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check-11

On 12/7/10 10:45 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: > > On Dec 7, 2010, at 11:12 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > >> On 12/7/10 6:35 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: >>> >>> On Dec 6, 2010, at 7:00 PM, =JeffH wrote: >>> >>>> Peter Saint-Andre replied..

Re: [Gen-art] [certid] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check-11

On 12/8/10 7:37 AM, Ben Campbell wrote: > > > On Dec 8, 2010, at 7:10 AM, Peter Saint-Andre > wrote: > >> On 12/7/10 10:45 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: >>> >>> On Dec 7, 2010, at 11:12 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>> >>>> On 12/7/10 6:

Re: [Gen-art] [certid] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check-11

[further elided] On 12/7/10 10:44 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: > > On Dec 7, 2010, at 11:02 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > >> On 12/7/10 5:10 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: >>> >>> On Dec 7, 2010, at 4:14 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>> >>> I note that

Re: [Gen-art] [certid] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check-11

On 12/8/10 11:34 AM, Ben Campbell wrote: > > On Dec 8, 2010, at 9:45 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > >>>>>>> -- 4.2.2: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can we have a URI-ID example? >>>>>> >>>>>> How

Re: [Gen-art] [certid] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check-11

nt. Looks good. I love gnarly URIs. :) > Also, given an > input URI of "im:al...@example.net", the derived service type is "sip" > (since the "im" scheme is defined as an abstract scheme in the SIP > context by [SIP-IM] (RFC 3428)), and the domain name is again > "example.net". Well, the im: and pres: URIs can result in a derived service type of "xmpp", too. It depends on what a service has deployed... http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3860 http://www.iana.org/assignments/im-srv-labels/im-srv-labels.xhtml Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] [certid] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check-11

On 12/8/10 1:16 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 12/8/10 12:50 PM, =JeffH wrote: > >> Also, given an >> input URI of "im:al...@example.net", the derived service type is "sip" >> (since the "im" scheme is defined as an abstract scheme in the

Re: [Gen-art] [certid] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check-11

t;the "im" scheme [CPIM] is defined as an abstract scheme in the SIP >>context by [SIP-IM]), and the domain name would again be >>"example.net". > > works for me. > > someone just noted offlist that we should perhaps change the

Re: [Gen-art] applicability of draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check (was: Gen-ART LC Review...)

all application protocols, but our prescriptions have become a bit more relaxed as we've realized how tangled the landscape is... Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] [certid] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check-11

On 12/8/10 2:39 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: > > On Dec 8, 2010, at 2:16 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > > [...] > >>> For example, given an input URI of >>> "sip:alice:p...@example.net;transport=tcp?subject=project%20x&priority=urgent", >>>

Re: [Gen-art] [certid] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check-11

On 12/8/10 2:04 PM, =JeffH wrote: > stpete replied.. >> >> On 12/7/10 8:01 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: >>> [[ Much abbreviated ]] >>> >>> At 9:10 PM -0700 12/6/10, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>>>>>> -- 3.1, rule 6: >>>>&g

Re: [Gen-art] [certid] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check-11

s the > Subject, not "the CN". There's multiple CN= AVAs in the Subject, but > parsing > them out is simple. I guess I'd just delete that entire middle sentence > "The > inclusion of...process." Well, since this text is in the security considerations sectio

Re: [Gen-art] [certid] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check-11

And the wordsmithing continues... On 12/8/10 3:52 PM, =JeffH wrote: > see way below... > > PeterSA wrote on Wed, 08 Dec 2010 07:54:52 -0700 (06:54 PST) >> >> On 12/8/10 7:37 AM, Ben Campbell wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Dec 8, 2010, at 7:10 AM, Peter Sain

Re: [Gen-art] [certid] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check-11

Thanks, Ben. I think we're close to declaring victory. :) Jeff and I will work to push out version -12 in the next 48 hours. On 12/9/10 7:52 AM, Ben Campbell wrote: > Still WFM. > > On Dec 8, 2010, at 5:55 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > >> And the wordsmithing continue

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis-19

Base64 -> Base 64 in the section title. I tried to make our terminology consistent with RFC 4648, but missed the title (and one instance in Section 6.5.5). Fixed. > 14.x: email addresses x...@ietf.org -> i...@ietf.org Fixed. > In line comments about changes... > > On Tue,

Re: [Gen-art] [xmpp] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis-19

Thanks, Elwyn. Replies inline, areas of agreement elided. [ cc'ing x...@ietf.org ] On 12/14/10 6:56 AM, Elwyn Davies wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-12-14 at 05:49 -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> >> On 12/10/10 2:53 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>> >>>

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-loreto-http-bidirectional-05.txt

On 12/3/10 8:44 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" wrote: > This is real example of protocol abuse. HTTP wasn't designed for > this and doesn't do this properly. Which is why folks who are currently using long-polling techniques are actively contributing to the HYBI WG. > The draft is non-judgmental, > an

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-loreto-http-bidirectional-05.txt

r, > > Thanks for the background. Indeed, a sentence or two about this being > a temporary approach, as you suggest, would be very helpful. > > Regards >Brian Carpenter > > On 2010-12-23 07:47, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> On 12/3/10 8:44 PM, "Brian E Carpen

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-loreto-http-bidirectional-05.txt

the > HTTP protocol was not designed for this use... which is a fact rather > than a judgement. > > Stefano > > Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> On 12/3/10 8:44 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" wrote: >> >>> This is real example of protocol abuse. HTTP wasn't des

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-loreto-http-bidirectional-05.txt

Hi Brian, After receiving feedback from my co-authors, I have wordsmithed the relevant text to: The authors acknowledge that both the "HTTP long polling" and "HTTP streaming" mechanisms stretch the original semantic of HTTP and that the HTTP protocol was not designed for bidirectional co

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-loreto-http-bidirectional-05.txt

Seeing no objections 24 hours later, I'll go ahead and post -07 with this adjusted text and one other small fix. On 1/3/11 4:06 PM, "Peter Saint-Andre" wrote: > Hi Brian, > > After receiving feedback from my co-authors, I have wordsmithed the relevant > t

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-dijkstra-urn-ogf-06.txt

t;Open Grid Forum"). ### Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Note Well applicability to bar BOFs

your friend, doesn't Note Well apply? Unless by "The IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG" we understand that you're not always speaking "on behalf of the IESG" (which would be a reasonable interpretation, IMHO). Peter

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-websec-origin-04.txt

f-websec-origin (as shown in Section 2.3) and is not defined in one of the IDNA specifications. Perhaps the following rewording would make that clearer: OLD An idna-canonicalized host name is NEW For the purposes of this document, we define "idna-canonicalized host name" as Peter

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-vcarddav-kind-app-00

1.4 of RFC 6350: An iana-token. Additional values may be registered with IANA (see Section 10.3.4). A new value's specification document MUST specify which properties make sense for that new kind of vCard and which do not. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ohye-canonical-link-relation-04.txt

On 12/13/11 1:57 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Please see attached review. Brian, thanks for the feedback. Authors, please reply at your convenience regarding the issues that our reviewer has raised. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter

Re: [Gen-art] GenART review of draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation-00

;>> Nits: >>> Including explanatory statements is unnecessary and distracting. >> >> I see no harm in them. > > Extra words that don't contribute to understanding the message are > harmful. I don't think these help. Martin, please check version -02 to see if your concern has been addressed. The explanatory text is much less prolix than it was previously. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-daboo-webdav-sync-06

cally, a client will use the synchronization report to retrieve the >> list of changes, and will follow that with requests to retrieve the >> content of changed resources. It is possible that additional changes to >> the collection could occur between the time of the synchroniz

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART last call review of draft-ietf-mile-rfc6046-bis-05

r of such a consortium, it seems like a bad idea to leave the authentication rules up to the consortium, without providing any sort of guidance. Version -05 at least pointed to RFC 6125. Since 6046bis is the HTTPS/TLS binding only, it might be more appropriate to point to RFC 2818 here instead of R

Re: [Gen-art] GenART review of draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation-00

On 1/23/12 4:52 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > Hi Peter, > > -02 is a marked improvement over the version I reviewed. All my > concerns were addressed. > > --Martin > > On Jan 18, 2012 8:14 AM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <mailto:stpe...@stpeter.im>>

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART last call review of draft-ietf-mile-rfc6046-bis-05

moves the normative force from the text about existing PKI implementations, while still encouraging use of DNS-IDs. Let us know what you think. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART last call review of draft-ietf-mile-rfc6046-bis-05

On 1/24/12 9:59 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > On 24/01/2012 16:45, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> On 1/24/12 2:25 AM, Brian Trammell wrote: >>> Hi, Alexey, >>> >>> So far only one voice on the WG list, stating no need for CN-ID. >>> However, on thinking abo

Re: [Gen-art] GenART review of draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation-00

On 1/23/12 4:54 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 1/23/12 4:52 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: >> Hi Peter, >> >> -02 is a marked improvement over the version I reviewed. All my >> concerns were addressed. >> >> --Martin >> >> On Jan 18, 2012 8:14 A

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART last call review of draft-ietf-mile-rfc6046-bis-05

y need to support CN-ID read between the > lines. Thoughts? > > Cheers, > > Brian > > On Jan 24, 2012, at 6:10 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > >> On 1/24/12 9:59 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: >>> On 24/01/2012 16:45, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>>> On 1/2

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC/Telechat review of draft-reschke-http-status-308-05

e don't want to make that permanent. > >> Nits/editorial comments: >> >> None > > Note that I have an updated version waiting to be submitted in two weeks > (or earlier, if the AD allows me to). It updates references, and adds an > informative ref to the HTML spec, as suggested during LC. See > <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-http-status-308-latest.html>. Julian, I think it would be helpful for you to submit your latest copy before the deadline today, so that we don't need to wait until March 26. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC/Telechat review of draft-reschke-http-status-308-05

Hi Ben, Do Julian's comments or the changes in version 06 address your concerns? Peter On 3/12/12 11:16 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2012-03-12 17:15, Ben Campbell wrote: >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on >> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at >> < http://wiki

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-salgueiro-vcarddav-kind-device-06

Hi Vijay and Gonzalo, Agreed, that change in the introduction makes sense. As to FN, how about this? OLD o The device itself (e.g., the FN property might represent the hostname of a computing device, the URL property might represent a website that contains details on where to fi

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-salgueiro-vcarddav-kind-device-06

I think only the expansion is fine. And yes, 6350. Typing too fast. :) On Nov 30, 2012, at 9:41 AM, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: > On 11/30/12 11:37 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> Hi Vijay and Gonzalo, >> >> Agreed, that change in the introduction makes sense. >>

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-appsawg-acct-uri-03

Hi Meral, thanks for your review. On Mar 6, 2013, at 8:32 AM, Meral Shirazipour wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, > please see the FAQ at > . > > Please resolve these comments along

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-appsawg-acct-uri-03

On Mar 6, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: >>> [Page 5] Section 5, "..access to personally identifying information..", do >>> you mean "..access to identifiable personal information" ? >> >> Looking at draft-iab-privacy-considerations, I think "personal data" might >> be best. > > Maybe. B

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat Call review of draft-ietf-appsawg-acct-uri-03

On Mar 23, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Meral Shirazipour wrote: I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at . Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting

Re: [Gen-art] Genart review of draft-saintandre-urn-example-04

On Apr 9, 2013, at 9:25 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: Thanks for your review, Christer. The document is up for discussion in this week's IESG telechat (on Thursday). Peter: Have you seen Christer's question about Section 2.6? Sorry, I had missed Christer's review. That text is an artifact of when

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-saintandre-impp-call-info-02

Hi Elwyn, thanks for the review. On Apr 23, 2013, at 2:12 PM, Elwyn Davies wrote: I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at . Please resolve these comments along with any other L

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ivov-xmpp-cusax-06.txt

On 6/23/13 8:27 PM, Peter Saint-Andre (psaintan) wrote: > Hi Brian, thanks for the review. Here is a provisional diff that addresses your feedback: https://github.com/emcho/cusax/commit/1c5e9d681748685360cc6677ea2e369b352e66db#draft-ivov-xmpp-cusax-07.xml > > On Jun 23, 2013, at 8:01

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ivov-xmpp-cusax-06.txt

> Regards >Brian > > On 25/06/2013 02:30, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> On 6/23/13 8:27 PM, Peter Saint-Andre (psaintan) wrote: >>> Hi Brian, thanks for the review. >> >> Here is a provisional diff that addresses your feedback: >> >> https://

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART IETF Last Call review for draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-12

Hi Ralph, thanks for the review. Comments inline. On 10/21/16 2:52 PM, Ralph Droms wrote: I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-12. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comme

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-precis-7700bis-07

Hi Russ, thanks for your review and my apologies for the delayed reply. On 5/31/17 2:10 PM, Russ Housley wrote: > Reviewer: Russ Housley > Review result: Ready > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processe

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-precis-7564bis-07

Hi Christer, Thanks for your review. Comments below. On 6/22/17 1:09 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote: > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > > > > > Document:

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art last call review of draft-ietf-precis-7613bis-07

rocessing within the application server or an authentication module thereof - for instance, instead of performing case mapping on first receiving data from the client (thus implying that the case information is lost through most of the processing stages), it's better to lose

Re: [Gen-art] [precis] Gen-art last call review of draft-ietf-precis-7613bis-07

On 6/26/17 5:48 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - Filament wrote: > Hi Linda, > > Thanks for your review. Comments inline. > > On 6/26/17 4:53 PM, Linda Dunbar wrote: >> >> Reviewer: Linda Dunbar >> Review result: Ready >> >> I am the assigned Gen-

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ivov-xmpp-cusax-06.txt

hes could introduce the possibility > of downgrade attacks." > > I'd say *would* introduce the possibility. Yes, that's more accurate. > It would seem possible for a > bad actor to pick up authentication data from the insecure service and > exploit it to atta