-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
-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
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
-01
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2013-09-30
IETF LC End Date: 2013-09-30
Summary: This draft is essentially ready for publication as an informational
RFC. I have some minor and editorial comments that may be worth considering
prior to publication.
Major issues:
None.
Minor issues
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
Hi, thanks for the response. Comments inline. I've removed sections that do not
appear to need further comment.
On Sep 17, 2013, at 1:29 PM, Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu wrote:
genart -- This abstract claims that this draft is a discussion of
genart issues. From that per spective,
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
-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
-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-...@ietf.org); ietf@ietf.org;
d...@ietf.org; bcla...@cisco.com
Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dime-overload
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
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
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
-jcard-04
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2013-07-16
IETF LC End Date: 2013-07-18
IESG Telechat date: 2013-07-18
Note: This draft is on the IESG Telechat agenda on the same date as it
completes IETF Last Call. Therefore, this review serves both purposes.
Summary: This draft is almost ready
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2013-07-16
IETF LC End Date: 2013-07-16
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard, but
I think there are some clarifications needed first.
Major issues:
-- None
Minor issues:
-- Abstract:
Is the abstract current? It says
-adobe-rtmfp-09
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2013-07-09
IESG Telechat date: 2013-07-11
Summary: This draft is essentially ready for publication as an informational
RFC. There is one issue from my previous review and related discussion that I
think is almost, but not completely handled. All
of that Cryptography Profile prior to implementing
RTMFP for the purpose of interoperation with the above mentioned
Adobe products.
thank you.
-michael thornburgh
From: Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@nostrum.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 12:59 PM
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the continued responses. A few more comments inline. I deleted
sections that did not seem to need further comment. In summary, all of my
concerns are resolved except for the crypto profile question.
Thanks!
Ben.
On Jun 26, 2013, at 2:00 PM, Michael Thornburgh
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
: 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
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
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
-interop-08
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2013-05-29
IETF LC End Date: 2013-05-30
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This draft is mostly ready for publication as an informational RFC.
All of the substantive comments from my earlier review have been addressed.
Some editorial issues remain
Thanks for the response. Comments inline. I removed sections for which I have
no further comment.
Thanks!
Ben.
On May 16, 2013, at 10:19 PM, Wang,Weiming wmwang2...@hotmail.com wrote:
[...]
-- The draft mentions a couple of instances of tests that failed because of
an incorrect
: 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
-06
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2013-04-25
IETF LC End Date: 2013-04-16
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard.
There are a few minor issues which should be considered first, described in the
review.
Major issues:
None.
Minor issues:
-- section 3
On Apr 25, 2013, at 5:32 PM, Fernando Gont fg...@si6networks.com wrote:
Hi, Ben,
Thanks so much for your feedback! Please find my comments in-line...
On 04/25/2013 03:39 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
Minor issues:
-- section 3, third paragraph from end:
The paragraph suggests
On Apr 25, 2013, at 7:44 PM, Ben Campbell b...@nostrum.com wrote:
So 6528 equally illustrates Steve Bellovin's work, and is also more current,
right? If someone decided to follow up to better understand your inspiration,
which draft would you prefer them to read?
oops, s/draft/version.
Hi, deleting sections that seem resolved:
On Apr 25, 2013, at 8:12 PM, Fernando Gont fg...@si6networks.com wrote:
[...]
-- 1, paragraph 11: This document does not update...
How is adding an alternative algorithm _not_ an update?
Well, you still send an RS, receive an RA, and generate
-embedded-ipv6-routing-11
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2013-04-19
IESG Telechat date: 2013-04-25
Summary: Ready for publication as an informational RFC. All of the comments
from my previous review of version 07 have been addressed. However, there
Major issues:
None
Minor issues:
None
Nits
-iid-registry-update-03
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2013-04-19
IESG Telechat date: 2013-04-25
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a proposed standard. All of the
comments from my review of 00 at last call have been addressed.
Major issues:
None.
Minor issues:
None.
Nits
-routing-07
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2013-03-26
IETF LC End Date: 2013-03-29
Summary: The draft is mostly ready for publication as an informational RFC, but
I have some editorial comments that might be worth considering prior to
publication.
Major issues:
None
Minor issues:
None
Nits
On Mar 20, 2013, at 3:09 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
However, I think an important part of that is ensuring that people
do *not* focus exclusively on a specific target, even if they are
busy people as Ben said.
Change the sense of ensuring to encouraging, and I
On Mar 14, 2013, at 9:13 AM, Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com wrote:
That's a really good idea!
Mary.
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
I think it might also be worth encouraging working group chairs to have
working group breakfast or lunch
On Mar 19, 2013, at 6:07 PM, Ben Campbell b...@nostrum.com wrote:
On Mar 14, 2013, at 9:13 AM, Mary Barnes mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com wrote:
That's a really good idea!
Mary.
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
I think it might also be worth
On Mar 18, 2013, at 7:42 AM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
Seriously though, I am roughly in the same camp as Seiichi. The real
introduction of someone into the IETF is mostly about finding discussion
partners around the reason why the person came to the IETF to begin with.
Most
-client-link-layer-addr-opt-04
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2013-02-25
IETF LC End Date: 2013-02-28
IESG Telechat date: 2013-02-28
Summary: Ready for publication as a proposed standard
Major issues:
None
Minor issues:
None
Nits/editorial comments:
-- Header:
I ca't help but enjoy
-update-00
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2013-01-16
IETF LC End Date: 2013-01-24
Summary: This draft is not ready for publication as a proposed standard. There
is a significant IANA registration issue described in the review body.
Major issues:
This draft carves out a significant part
I generally take (what I infer to be) Richard's view on the matter. If not
doing something will break interoperability or security, then make it
normative. (I realize that's a gross oversimplification).
But that still doesn't mean you have to have a MUST for every step an
implementation has
-suboption-11
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2013-01-03
IESG Telechat date: 2013-01-10
Summary: Ready for publication as a proposed standard.
Note: This review is incremental to my previous Gen-ART review at IETF last
call. The only substantive comment from that review has been addressed
responses inline below.
Regards,
Ramakrishna DTV.
-Original Message-
From: Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@nostrum.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 2:45 AM
To: draft-ietf-dhc-relay-id-suboption@tools.ietf.org
Cc: gen-...@ietf.org Review Team; ietf@ietf.org List
Subject: Gen-ART LC
On Dec 21, 2012, at 8:27 AM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Dec 21, 2012, at 7:48 AM, RAMAKRISHNADTV ramakrishna...@infosys.com
wrote:
As Ted mentioned, our draft only proposes a new sub-option for relay-agent
option which was originally created as part of RFC3046. So, the
On Dec 21, 2012, at 10:06 AM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Dec 21, 2012, at 10:45 AM, Ben Campbell b...@nostrum.com wrote:
As I responded separately to Ramakrishna, is the SHOULD use 4030 language a
new requirement specific to this draft? Or is it just describing
requirements
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2012-12-19
IETF LC End Date: 2013-01-07
Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication as a proposed standard.
However, there is one comment from a prior review that I am not sure whether is
resolved.
Major issues:
None
Minor issues:
-- In Sean Turner's
-tcp-analysis-07
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2012-12-18
IESG Telechat date: 2012-12-20
Summary: Ready for publication as an informational RFC. There are still a
couple of nits that might be worth consideration prior to final publication.
Note: This review is incremental to my review
I think Nick's email was a review of the document in general, rather than
commentary on my review in particular. But since it was addressed to me, I do
have one comment in response:
On Dec 18, 2012, at 4:12 PM, Nick Hilliard n...@inex.ie wrote:
On 18/12/2012 20:14, Ben Campbell wrote
, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote:
Further trimming it to sections that require a response.
On Nov 21, 2012, at 3:12 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
*** Minor issues *** :
-- section 2.2, last paragraph:
The IKE mention lacks context. Do you mean to suggest IKE with IPSec? I
assume so, but there's
Hi, thanks for the response. I removed sections that didn't seem to need
further comment:
On Nov 19, 2012, at 1:58 AM, Mahesh Jethanandani mjethanand...@gmail.com
wrote:
[...]
*** Minor issues *** :
-- section 2.2, last paragraph:
The IKE mention lacks context. Do you mean to suggest
.txt
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2012-11-14
IETF LC End Date: 2012-11-19
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an informational RFC.
There are a few minor issues and a number of editorial issues that should be
considered prior to publication.
*** Major issues ***:
None
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2012-11-12
IESG Telechat date: 2012-11-15
Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication as an informational RFC.
All of the comments from my Gen-ART review of version 05 at IETF last call have
been dealt with to my satisfaction in the draft
-shepherd-01
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2012-11-12
IESG Telechat date: 2012-11-15
Summary: I have mixed feelings about this draft being published as an IETF
stream RFC in it's current form.
Major issues:
This draft is not substantially changed since my Gen-ART review of version 00
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2012-10-23
IETF LC End Date: 2012-10-23
Summary: I'm not sure what to make of this draft. I think the opinions herein
are worth capturing, but have mixed feelings about it belong in an
informational RFC.
Major issues:
-- Process: I share some of the concerns
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2012-10-23
IETF LC End Date: 2012-10-23
Summary: I'm not sure what to make of this draft. I think the opinions herein
are worth capturing, but have mixed feelings about it belong in an
informational RFC.
Major issues:
-- Process: I share some of the concerns
-transport-sec-13
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2012-09-25
IESG Telechat date: 2012-09-27
Note: This review is incremental to my Gen-ART review of version 11 at IETF LC.
Summary: This version is ready for publication as a proposed standard. All of
my concerns from the previous review have
On Sep 21, 2012, at 10:52 AM, Glen Zorn glenz...@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/21/2012 10:44 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 9/21/12 10:23 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
-- The abstract should mention that this obsoletes 5721
Why? There is a statement in the header, 10 lines above the abstract, that
Thanks for the response!
On Sep 21, 2012, at 10:23 AM, Pete Resnick presn...@qualcomm.com wrote:
[...]
-- same paragraph : The UTF8 command MAY fail.
Under what circumstances? (this seems sort of tacked onto the
paragraph--does it belong there?)
AFAICT, it is simply a warning to
On Sep 21, 2012, at 11:14 AM, Pete Resnick presn...@qualcomm.com wrote:
[Changing the subject and removing GenArt and the document authors/chairs]
On 9/21/12 10:52 AM, Glen Zorn wrote:
-- The abstract should mention that this obsoletes 5721
Why? There is a statement in the header, 10
Hi John, thanks for the response. Comments inline:
On Sep 19, 2012, at 3:45 AM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
--On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 21:24 -0500 Ben Campbell
b...@nostrum.com wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For
background on Gen-ART, please
On Sep 19, 2012, at 6:53 AM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
Following up on my earlier note about a comment from you that
really applies to the strategy on which all four documents are
really based...
--On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 20:44 -0500 Ben Campbell
b...@nostrum.com
Thanks for the response--comments inline:
On Sep 19, 2012, at 10:18 AM, Arnt Gulbrandsen a...@gulbrandsen.priv.no wrote:
On 09/19/2012 04:24 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http
: draft-ietf-eai-popimap-downgrade-07
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2012-09-18
IETF LC End Date: 2012-09-20
Summary: This draft is mostly on the right track, but has open issues
Major issues:
-- I'm concerned about the security considerations related to having a mail
drop
: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2012-09-18
IETF LC End Date: 2012-09-20
Summary: The draft is mostly ready for publication as a draft standard. I
have a few editorial comments that should be considered prior to publication.
Major issues: None
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
-- IDNits has
On Sep 18, 2012, at 8:18 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 .
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call
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-eai-5738bis-09
Reviewer: Ben
: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2012-09-18
IETF LC End Date: 2012-09-20
Summary: The draft is mostly ready for publication as a draft standard. I
have a few editorial comments that should be considered prior to publication.
Major issues: None
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
-- IDNits has
On Sep 18, 2012, at 8:18 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 .
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2012-09-18
IETF LC End Date: 2012-09-20
Summary: This draft is mostly on the right track, but has open issues
Major issues:
-- I'm concerned about the security considerations related to having a mail
drop modify a potentially signed message. The draft mentions
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2012-09-18
IETF LC End Date: 2012-09-20
Summary: This draft is mostly on the right track, but has open issues
Major issues:
-- I'm concerned about the security considerations related to having a mail
drop modify a potentially signed message. The draft mentions
-bar-bof-08
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2012-08-28
IESG Telechat date: 2012-08-30
Summary: Ready for publication as an informational RFC
Note: The review assignment was for version 07, but since 08 was published
prior to my review, I reviewed it instead. This version and related email
On Aug 13, 2012, at 9:14 AM, philip.eard...@bt.com wrote:
Ben,
Thanks for your review.
The right status isn't clear-cut (I think), but when we (Chairs Wes)
discussed it, Info seemed best
* mainly because precedent seems to be that API docs are informational, for
example socket API
MUST NOT) serve
unprotected content, then I think the original language is okay.
Thanks!
Ben.
On Aug 9, 2012, at 6:03 PM, Alexey Melnikov alexey.melni...@isode.com wrote:
On 02/08/2012 10:46, Ben Campbell wrote:
Hi, thanks for the response. Comments inline:
On Jul 29, 2012, at 10:29 PM
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-mptcp-api-05
Reviewer: Ben
On Aug 10, 2012, at 4:33 PM, =JeffH jeff.hod...@kingsmountain.com wrote:
Thanks Ben.
Jeff and I had a f2f discussion about this point in Vancouver. To paraphrase
(and I assume he will correct me if if I mischaracterize anything), Jeff
indicated that this really wasn't a MUST level
Hi, thanks for the response. Comments inline:
On Jul 29, 2012, at 10:29 PM, =JeffH jeff.hod...@kingsmountain.com wrote:
-- Does this draft update any other RFCs (e.g. 2616 or 2818)? If so, that
should be explicitly flagged and mentioned in the abstract.
Good question, I don't believe
Jeff and I spoke f2f. Pending actual text, I believe we have resolutions to all
of my comments save those about an extension registry, which Jeff will discuss
with other interested parties.
Thanks!
Ben.
On Aug 2, 2012, at 10:46 AM, Ben Campbell b...@nostrum.com wrote:
Hi, thanks
-11
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2012-07-24
IETF LC End Date: 2012-07-25
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard, but
there are a few issues that should be considered first.
*** Major issues:
None
*** Minor issues:
-- Does this draft update any other
: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2012-07-03
IETF LC End Date: 2012-07-11
Summary: Ready for publication as a proposed standard
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
-- section 2:
The RFC 2119 boilerplate is present, but I don't notice any 2119 normative
language
: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2012-06-14
IETF LC End Date: 2012-06-15
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard. I
have one security consideration question that should be addressed first. I also
have some editorial comments that might be worth addressing
Thanks for the quick response. Further comments inline. I deleted sections that
do not appear to need further discussion.
Thanks!
Ben.
On Jun 1, 2012, at 10:45 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
Hi Ben,
Thanks for your review. See responses below.
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Ben Campbell
-extension-04
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2012-05-31
IETF LC End Date: 2012-06-07
IESG Telechat date: 2012-06-07
Note: Since this draft is on the agenda of the IESG Telechat on the same day
that the IETF last call expires, this review is intended for both purposes.
Summary:
This draft
: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2012-06-14
IETF LC End Date: 2012-06-14
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an informational RFC.
Major issues:
None
Minor issues:
None
Nits/editorial comments:
-- 2.1, 1st paragraph:
Please expand RSVP-TE on first mention.
-- 2.1, 2nd paragraph: ...can
On Apr 30, 2012, at 12:25 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
Hi Ben
Thank you for your review.
The IANA policy is stated as IETF Review (end of first para in IANA)
Okay, I guess I just missed it.
The normative text is deliberate - this was part of the change that we needed
to make.
Then
-static-pw-status-10)
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2012-04-26
IETF LC End Date: 2012-04-30
Note: This draft has previously been approved as RFC 6478, but I
understand we are last calling it again due to some material changes in AUTH48.
Therefore this is a review of the diff between
Apologies for the delayed response--the day job got in the way this week.
Comments inline:
On Mar 12, 2012, at 12:16 PM, 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
-308-05
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2012-03-12
IETF LC End Date: 2012-03-16
IESG Telechat date: 2012-03-15
Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication as an experimental RFC.
I have a few minor comments that might be worth considering whether they would
improve the document
-03
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2012-02-28
IETF LC End Date: 2012-02-29
IESG Telechat date: 2012-03-01
Note: Since the Telechat review deadline is a day before the end of the IETF
last call, this review serves both as a Telechat review and an IETF Last Call
review.
Summary: This draft
Hi,
This is a followup on my Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dhc-forcerenew-nonce-04,
based on my previous review of version 03. In summary, this version is
improved, but I still don't think it's ready for publication.
On Feb 6, 2012, at 5:17 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART
Hi, thanks for the response. See additional comments inline. (I removed
sections for which no further comment seems necessary)
On Feb 10, 2012, at 7:52 AM, Maglione Roberta wrote:
[...]
-- I admit to not being a DHCP expert, but If I understand this draft
correctly, it proposes to send
On Feb 11, 2012, at 10:24 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
[RM] The intention is to use this method only for environments with native
security mechanisms, such as the Broadband Access network. You are right it
is not clearly said in the document I can add the following sentence at the
end of the
On Feb 13, 2012, at 3:21 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Feb 13, 2012, at 4:06 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
Do I infer correctly from your comment that the security properties of the
mechanism don't really matter? That is, if the attacker we care about can't
eavesdrop in the first place, does
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2012-02-06
IETF LC End Date: 2012-02-06
Summary:This draft is not quite ready for publication as a proposed standard.
There are some potentially significant issues that should be addressed first.
[Note: Hopefully this draft has had or will have a SecDir review
Additionally, the I got a failed delivery notice (User Unknow) for David
Miles's address.
On Feb 6, 2012, at 5:17 PM, 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.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2012-01-23
IETF LC End Date: 2012-01-23
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a proposed standard.
Note: I performed a gen-art review on revision 3 of this draft in a previous
last call. My understanding is that the draft has been last called again due
-saml-08
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2012-01-13
IESG Telechat date: 2012-01-19
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard.
There are a few minor issues that should be considered first.
Note: This is incremental to my review of version 06 at last call. Version
: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2012-01-05
IETF LC End Date:2012-01-05
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This draft is on the right track for publication as a proposed
standard. However, there are a few minor issues, and sufficient editorial
issues to make the document difficult to understand
-bis-04
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-12-12
IESG Telechat date: 2011-12-15
Summary: This draft remains almost ready for publication as a proposed standard
I performed a gen-art review of version 03 of this draft at IETF last call,
available at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art
: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-12-13
IETF LC End Date: 2011-12-15
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard
Major issues:
None
Minor issues:
-- section 3.1, paragraph 4: Implementations MUST NOT generate errors for
recursive inclusions at upload time
: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-11-21
IETF LC End Date: 2011-11-21
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard.
Major issues:
None
Minor issues:
-- Appendix A refers the reader back to RFC 3782 for additional information.
But this draft purports to obsolete
-status-09
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-10-31
IESG Telechat date: 2011-11-3
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard, but
there are a couple of comments from my review at last call that have not yet
been addressed.
Major issues:
None
Minor issues
-reqs-07
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-01-01
IESG Telechat date: 2011-01-03
Summary:
This version is basically ready for publication as an informational RFC. Alan
responded to two of my comments with perfectly reasonable explanations (see
quoted text below.) In both cases, I think
-rfc1948bis-01
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2011-01-01
IETF LC End Date: 2011-01-02
IESG Telechat date: 2011-01-03
Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication as a proposed standard.
I have a couple of minor comments and nits that might be worth considering, but
probably shouldn't block
1 - 100 of 305 matches
Mail list logo
