: draft-ietf-ecrit-location-hiding-req-02
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 16 Feb 2010
IESG Telechat date: 18 Feb 2010
Summary: This draft is really close to ready for publication as an
informational RFC. I have one unaddressed editorial comment, which on
reflection I am promoting to a minor
-rmt-flute-revised-10
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2010-02-10
IETF LC End Date: 2010-02-10
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard.
However, I have some comments that should be addressed first.
Note: The last call notice asked
: draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-spc-rsvpte-ext-06
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 1 Feb 2010
IESG Telechat date: 4 Feb 2010
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a draft standard, but I
think there are a few issues that need clarification first, as well as some
editorial issues.
Note
.
Document: draft-ietf-idnabis-rationale-15
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 06 Jan 2010
IESG Telechat date: 07 Jan 2010
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an informational RFC.
Note: This review is incremental to my Gen-art last call review on version 13.
All of my comments from that
.
Document: draft-klensin-ftp-registry-03
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 14 Dec 2009
IESG Telechat date: 17 Dec 2009
Summary: Ready for publication as a proposed standard. This version and related
correspondences address all of my comments from my last call review of version
02.
Major issues: None
-hip-native-api-09
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2009-11-30
IETF LC End Date: 2009-12-03
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an experimental RFC. I have a
small number of editorial comments that might be worth addressing if there is a
new version
Thanks for the response. Comments inline:
Ben.
On Nov 22, 2009, at 3:55 PM, Alfred HÎnes wrote:
> Ben,
> thanks for your GenART review.
> Please see my responses inline.
>
>
> Ben Campbell wrote:
>
>> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
-ftp-registry-02
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2009-11-20
IETF LC End Date: 2009-11-23
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary:
This draft is very close to ready to publish as a proposed standard. I have one
minor clarification question, and a few nits.
Major issues:
None.
Minor issues
-smime-cnipa-pec-05
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2009-11-03
IETF LC End Date: 2009-11-10
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This draft has significant open issues. I am not sure if it lands in
the "open issues but on the right track", or "serious issues and needs t
-l3vpn-e2e-rsvp-te-reqts-04
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 20-Oct-2009
IETF LC End Date: 20-Oct-2009
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary:
This draft is almost ready for publication as an informational RFC. I
have a few minor and a number of editorial comments that should be
addressed prior
On Oct 20, 2009, at 2:30 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Summary:
This draft is ready for publication as a draft standard.
Did you mean proposed standard?
Uhm, yes, sorry. I guess after typing "draft" once in the sentence I
got carried away.
___
I
: draft-ietf-sasl-scram-10
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 19 Oct 2009
IESG Telechat date: 22 Oct 2009
Summary:
This draft is ready for publication as a draft standard.
Major issues:
None
Minor issues:
None
Nits/editorial comments:
None
: draft-ietf-syslog-sign-28
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 19 Oct 2009
IESG Telechat date: 22 Oct 2009
Summary: Ready for publication. This revision, along with related
email correspondence, addresses all my concerns from my LC review of
revision 27.
Note: My email rules somehow
Hi,
This email addresses all of my concerns. Specific comments inline
Thanks!
Ben.
On Oct 19, 2009, at 9:30 AM, mike shand wrote:
Ben Campbell wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http
-idnabis-rationale-13
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2009-Oct-13
IETF LC End Date: 2009-Oct-13
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary:
This draft is ready for publication as an informational RFC.
Note: This draft is tightly intertwined with other IDNABIS drafts that
I assume to be progressing
: draft-ietf-rtgwg-lf-conv-frmwk-06
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 06 Oct 2009
IESG Telechat date: 08 Oct 2009
Summary: This document is ready for publication as an informational
RFC. I have a few remaining nits that may be worth addressing if there
is a new revision, or possibly in auth 48
Hi Alexa,
How should one go about expressing to the hotel that they preferred
non-smoking but were unable to get it? I assume they need some lead
time for this, so mentioning it at arrival time might be too late.
Thanks!
Ben.
On Oct 1, 2009, at 5:15 PM, Alexa Morris wrote:
There are stil
Hi Alexey,
Your responses in this and your other email address all of my comments.
Thanks!
Ben.
On Oct 2, 2009, at 12:31 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 2:22 AM, Ben Campbell
wrote:
[...]
Minor issues:
[...]
-- section 4, first paragraph: "...as long as
the only outstanding
comment.
Yes, no problem. That one could be done as an editor note (or not at
all, really--it's pretty minor.)
Thanks again!
Regards,
Ahmad
-Original Message-
From: Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@nostrum.com]
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 2:47 PM
To: Mu
Hi,
This is a followup of my Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mext-binding-
revocation, updated based on revision 13 of that draft.
This revision addresses all of my substantive issues, and most of the
editorial issues. I had one outstanding minor editorial comment where
the author proposed a
-scram-07
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2009-08-23
IETF LC End Date: 2009-08-28
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary:
This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard. I
have a few questions and editorial comments that might be worth
considering prior to publication
On Sep 23, 2009, at 9:26 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, Ben Campbell wrote:
Concrete example:
Would a presentation on how tor was used to bypass state controls on
news during the recent election protests in Iran be acceptable under
the terms of the agreement?
That would
On Sep 22, 2009, at 10:14 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
I'm not talking about incitement to riot, advocacy of terrorism,
expressions of racial hatred, or anything of the kind. As I have
expressed several times in this thread, I'm talking about discussion
of
technical topics that impinge on th
Thanks for the quick response. Your responses address all of my
comments.
Thanks!
Ben.
On Sep 23, 2009, at 5:52 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Thanks for the review Ben. Couple of comments below.
Ben Campbell wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for
: draft-ietf-pkix-other-certs-05
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 22 Sep 2009
IESG Telechat date: 24 Sept 2009
Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication as an
experimental RFC. I have one concern that might be problematic if this
was standards track, but I suspect would not
Could technical discussions about the following be considered political?
Internet censorship (including evading of it)
Data privacy
anonymization
Lawful intercept
Spyware
DRM
I have personally seen IETF presentations that explicitly talked about
on how encryption and anonymization are pro-huma
a Binding Revocation Acknowledgement.
This way we do not need to add the clarification note.
What do you think?
Please let me know and many thanks again!
Regards,
Ahmad
-Original Message-
From: Muhanna, Ahmad (RICH1:2H10)
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 2:06 PM
To: 'Ben Campb
-syslog-sign-27
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2009-09-15
IETF LC End Date: 2009-09-17
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary:
This document is almost ready for publication as a draft standard. I
found a few minor issues that may need to be considered, and have a
few editorial comments
-Original Message-
From: Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@estacado.net]
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC and Telechat Review of
draft-ietf-mext-binding-revocation-10
This is a followup on revision 12, since it came out
before I got to
revision 11:
Overall, I think this revision is much better. Most of my
On Sep 1, 2009, at 1:00 PM, Alexa Morris wrote:
60% of our room block is considered non smoking but, as our room
block is on the smaller side, it is possible that all non smoking
rooms are indeed sold out. We have contacted the hotel to see how we
can best work through this issue, but at t
he Acknowledge (A)
bit is set. Text was tweaked in several places.
6. all nits and editorial comments
Please let me know if you still have any issue.
Thanks for all of your comments and help!
Regards,
Ahmad
-Original Message-
From: Muhanna, Ahmad (RICH1:2H10)
Sent: Thursday, Aug
On Sep 10, 2009, at 5:35 PM, Ahmad Muhanna wrote:
Hi Ben,
Thanks for the follow up. Please see answers inline.
Regards,
Ahmad
-Original Message-
From: Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@estacado.net]
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC and Telechat Review of
draft-ietf-mext-binding-revocation-10
This
-rtgwg-lf-conv-frmwk-05
Reviewer:
Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2009-09-03
IETF LC End Date: 2009-09-04
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This document is mostly ready for publication as an
informational RFC. There are a few nits and editorial issues that
would be helpful to address first
I think we've got closure on all Part I issues, pending the actual
text :-)
Thanks!
Ben.
On Sep 2, 2009, at 1:12 AM, Ahmad Muhanna wrote:
Hi Ben,
Please see inline.
Regards,
Ahmad
-Original Message-
From: Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@estacado.net]
Subject: Re: [PART-I] Gen-A
On Sep 1, 2009, at 3:35 PM, Ahmad Muhanna wrote:
[...]
So is it true that using bulk revocation without IPSec could make it
possible for an attacker to masquerade as an authorized party, and
delete large numbers of bindings with a single BRI?
[Ahmad]
Well, we need to be a little careful here
Hi Ahmad,
Comments inline. I deleted items I think we can consider closed.
On Aug 29, 2009, at 3:21 AM, Ahmad Muhanna wrote:
[...]
I still have concerns about the use of IPSec, though, as
without IPSec of some other form of authentication, an
attacker could conceivably impersonate the nod
HI--I think we're almost closed on this Part II --remaining comments
below:
On Aug 29, 2009, at 2:14 AM, Ahmad Muhanna wrote:
[...]
Does the potential guess-ability of a sequence number have
security implications?
[Ahmad]
Not at all. Packet must pass IPsec authentication first.
But reme
arify relationship with
standards work" vs "commentary on the quality of the work".
Yours,
Joel
Ben Campbell wrote:
On Aug 31, 2009, at 8:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
[...]
+1 , including the "IETF consensus call" part.
I don't understand how IETF
On Aug 31, 2009, at 8:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
[...]
+1 , including the "IETF consensus call" part.
I don't understand how IETF consensus is relevant to a non-IETF
document.
Can't the IETF can have a consensus that a non-IETF document
relates to
other IETF work in some way?
On Aug 31, 2009, at 6:14 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2009-09-01 05:56, Ben Campbell wrote:
On Aug 31, 2009, at 11:39 AM, Brian Rosen wrote:
Yes, I understand, this only applies to the Independent Submission
stream.
We ask the IESG to review these documents, and that review is
On Aug 31, 2009, at 11:39 AM, Brian Rosen wrote:
Yes, I understand, this only applies to the Independent Submission
stream.
We ask the IESG to review these documents, and that review is
technical.
I don't think it is appropriate for an editor to make a judgment of
whether
a technical n
Hi Ahmad,
Let me comment on the security issues at a high level up front, since
I think I can tie together responses to several of your comments
below. More specific comments imbedded:
I think the email from Jari helped clarify things for me to a point
that I can make my concerns a little
Thanks for the response. Comments inline. I will remove sections where
I think we are in agreement.
On Aug 27, 2009, at 3:08 AM, Ahmad Muhanna wrote:
Hi Ben,
Please see answers in line for PART-II.
-Original Message-
From: Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@estacado.net]
Subject: Gen-ART LC
Hi Jari--comments inline:
On Aug 26, 2009, at 5:05 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Ben,
Thanks for your review!
Wrt. authorization, the document does make it clear that bulk
revocation requires explicit authorization (search for
"authorization"). The document does not say how to achieve this, but
On Aug 26, 2009, at 3:58 AM, Ahmad Muhanna wrote:
Hi Ben,
Thanks for the detailed review and comments.
Please allow me to address your comments in two parts.
1. PART-I: Major and technical issues.
2. PART-II: remaining comments.
Please see answers inline for PART-I.
Regards,
Ahmad
-Ori
Note that the address listed in the draft tracker for Julien bounces--
trying again with the address on the MEXT wg page:
On Aug 25, 2009, at 9:56 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please
: draft-ietf-mext-binding-revocation-10
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 25 Aug 2009
IESG Telechat date: 27 Aug 2009
Note: I was assigned to review revision 08 of this draft for the last
call ending 28 Aug, as well as this version (10) for the 27 Aug
Telechat. This review serves both purposes
The thread so far has gotten difficult to follow, so I'm going to try
to reset the conversation. I think we have been disagreeing in 2 areas.
The first is how much the document should say about how much semantic
knowledge of sieve is expected for editors. On rereading the thread, I
think we
On Aug 16, 2009, at 11:01 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
[...]
it would be helpful to have a sentence or two somewhere (maybe
in the intro) to explicitly say so. My confusion might be around the
meaning of the term "client" in this context.
No, I think your confusion is that you read a lot more into t
before posting a new version of the draft.
Document: draft-freed-sieve-in-xml-05
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2009-08-11
IETF LC End Date: 2009-08-13
IESG Telechat date: 2009-08-13
Note: The LC end and the Telechat are on the same day, so this review
serves as both a last call and
: draft-freed-sieve-in-xml-05
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2009-08-11
IETF LC End Date: 2009-08-13
IESG Telechat date: 2009-08-13
Note: The LC end and the Telechat are on the same day, so this review
serves as both a last call and telechat review.
Summary: This draft is almost ready
: draft-ietf-opsawg-syslog-snmp-04
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date:
IESG Telechat date: 13 August 2009
Summary: Ready for publication as a proposed standard. This revision
addresses all of the comments from my gen-art review of version 03,
and is otherwise an improvement.
Major issues
On Jul 14, 2009, at 6:07 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
I have a a couple comments about the implementation report. I
do not necessarily consider them blocking issues; I bring
them up merely for consideration.
-- The implementation report refers to RFC and draft versions
that are (at least) a
: draft-hollenbeck-rfc4933bis-02
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 13 July 2009
IESG Telechat date: 16 July 2009
Summary:
The draft is ready for publication. However, I have a couple of minor
comments about the implementation report at http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/RFCs3730
-opsawg-syslog-snmp-03
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2009-07-10
IETF LC End Date: 2009-07-13
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary:
This draft is very close to ready for publication as a proposed
standard. I have a few minor comments that may be worth considering,
as well as a small number
-l3vpn-as4octet-ext-community-03
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2009-06-30
IETF LC End Date: 2009-07-07
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary:
This draft is ready for publication as a proposed standard. I have a
couple of comments that may be worth addressing if there is other
reason to
Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-iana-special-ipv4-registry-01
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2009-06-30
IETF LC End Date: 2009-07-01
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary:
This draft is almost ready for publication as an informational RFC. I
have some minor comments that
-special-ipv4-registry-01
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2009-06-30
IETF LC End Date: 2009-07-01
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary:
This draft is almost ready for publication as an informational RFC. I
have some minor comments that should be addressed first.
Major issues:
None.
Minor
On Jun 12, 2009, at 7:27 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
Note: The LC announcement mentions an implementation report
at http://www.ietf.org/IESG/implementation.html
. If there is in fact a report there for this draft, I did
not find it.
The implementation report that was submitted when RFC 3733
-hollenbeck-rfc4933bis-01
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2009-06-11
IETF LC End Date: 2009-06-11
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a full standard.
Note: The LC announcement mentions an implementation report at http://www.ietf.org/IESG/implementation.html
btly different. If that was the intent, then I think the text _does_
need clarification.
You are correct that the device is the HTTP client the the LIS the
HTTP
server, so the reference should have been to section 9.3 - sorry.
Mary.
-Original Message-
From: Ben Campbell [mai
Hi Mary,
Responses inline. I've edited out sections that I think we have
closure on.
On Jun 8, 2009, at 1:55 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
[...]
-- Section 6.2, value list:
-- In my previous review, I was confused as to the relationship
between
the geodetic/civic and LoBV/LoBR choices. I thi
On Jun 8, 2009, at 11:58 PM, Thomson, Martin wrote:
[1] The document is clear on its use of digest/basic: the LIS MUST
NOT rely on it being used. That’s in recognition of the above
constraint. In other words, the LIS MUST NOT fail a request because
the device did not provide authenticat
that
you had questions about that I responded to in a separate email.
So, I'm not certain I understand the problem IF I make the proposed
change to the sentence in section 8.
Mary.
-----Original Message-
From: Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@estacado.net]
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 1:47
on 9.1.
I'll respond to your other comments separately.
Thanks,
Mary.
-Original Message-
From: Ben Campbell [mailto:b...@estacado.net]
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 9:13 AM
To: Richard Barnes
Cc: General Area Review Team; Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00);
james.winterbot...@andrew.com; mart
tance, if the request needs to be authenticated with
Basic or Digest authentication, the server may issue a 401
Unauthorized response as a challenge, or if the indicated path is
not valid, then the server may issue a 404 Not Found.)
"
Cheers,
--Richard
Ben Campbell wrote:
I have been
-geopriv-http-location-delivery-14
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2009-06-04
IETF LC End Date: 2009-06-09
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary:
This draft is ready for publication as a proposed standard. I have a
few editorial and clarity comments that might could slightly improve
the draft
-enterprise-number-documentation-01
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2008-05-08
IETF LC End Date: 2008-06-04
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an informational RFC.
Major issues: None.
Minor issues: None.
Nits/editorial comments: None
-ecrit-location-hiding-req-01
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 20090507
IETF LC End Date: 20090511
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary:
This document is almost ready for publication as an informational RFC.
There are some minor clarity issues where the reader is left to infer
some things that
-mipshop-mos-dhcp-options-13
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2009-04-27
IETF LC End Date: 2009-04-27
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a proposed standard. I
do have a small number of "nit" comments which may or may not be worth
consideratio
general
area review team.) I'm not sure about the assignment criteria, but I
_think_ we try to catch most, if not every, draft being IETF last
called for publication.
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: "Ben Campbell"
To: ; ; "General Area
Review Team&qu
-transport-security-model-12
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2009-04-10
IETF LC End Date: 2009-04-15
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary:
This draft is ready for publication as a proposed standard. I have a
few nit comments, attention to which might improve the document.
Major issues
-icmp-unnumbered-06
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2009-03-07
IETF LC End Date: 2009-04-06
IESG Telechat date: (unknown)
Summary:
I previously reviewed this draft in it's first IETF LC. Further
correspondences with the authors addressed all of my comments, however
as far as I know the
: draft-ietf-pim-rpf-vector-08
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 27 January 2009
IESG Telechat date: 29 January 2009
Summary:
This draft is ready for publication as a proposed standard. This
version addresses all of the comments in my previous Gen-ART review of
version 7.
Major issues
-rpf-vector-07
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2009-01-13
IETF LC End Date: 2009-01-19
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This draft is very close to ready for publication as a
proposed standard. There is a minor issue that should be addressed
prior to publication, and a couple of
On Jan 8, 2009, at 10:27 PM, Naiming Shen wrote:
Hi Ben,
Thanks for the review.
Just to comment on the "Security Considerations" you referred to
below.
Most of those information probably is not sensitive, if a router
allows a traceroute packet
to go through; Also this draft references t
-icmp-unnumbered-06
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2009-01-08
IETF LC End Date: 2009-01-27
IESG Telechat date: (unknown)
Summary: This draft is very close to ready for publication as a
proposed standard. I have a couple of minor comments and questions
that should be considered prior to
f/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-freed-sieve-ihave-03
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2008-12-10
IETF LC End Date: 2008-12-08
Summary:
This draft is ready for publication as a proposed sta
-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
On Nov 25, 2008, at 5:29 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
Document: draft-ietf-mpls-te-scaling-analysis-03
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2008-11-25
IETF LC End Date: 2008-11-30
IESG Telechat date: (if
-secsh-aes-gcm-00
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2008-11-26
IETF LC End Date: 2008-12-03
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary:
This draft is ready for publication as an informational RFC.
Comments:
(All of these are minor. I think that addressing them could improve
the draft, but none are
Document: draft-ietf-mpls-te-scaling-analysis-03
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2008-11-25
IETF LC End Date: 2008-11-30
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary:
This draft is ready for publication as an informational RFC.
Nits:
-- Don't forget the new IPR boilerplate.
-- Abs
-dnsext-dns-sd-05
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2008-11-13
IETF LC End Date: 2008-12-02
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary:
This draft is on the right track, but there are open issues that
should be considered prior to publication.
General Comments:
-- Intended Status
I am not
-rpf-vector-06
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2008-11-05
IETF LC End Date: 2008-11-13
Summary:
This draft is almost ready for publication. I have a few fairly minor
concerns that I think should be addressed prior to publication, and
some editorial nits.
Substantive Comments:
-- It is
-nfsv4-pnfs-block-09
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2008-11-04
IETF LC End Date: 2008-11-27
Summary:
This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard. I
have a couple of questions that I think should be considered first,
and a couple of nits.
Comments:
[Disclaimer]
While
: draft-ietf-avt-dtls-srtp-06
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 03 Nov 2008
IESG Telechat date: 06 Nov 2008
Summary:
This draft is ready for publication as a proposed standard.
Comments:
I previously reviewed version 05 of this draft. Version 06 address all
of my comments from that review
On Oct 29, 2008, at 6:37 PM, Bhatia, Manav (Manav) wrote:
(On the other hand, since this is a MAY, it's probably less of an
issue than if it were a stronger normative statement.)
Upon rereading this particular text I realize that its redundant and
can
be safely pruned. This is because impl
Thanks--comments imbedded. I have edited out items that I think are
closed.
In summary, you have addressed all of my substantive comments.
Anything remaining is editorial, and minor at that.
On Oct 28, 2008, at 8:35 PM, Bhatia, Manav (Manav) wrote:
[...]
-- The draft suggests that thi
Thanks!
I will address your other responses separately, but I wanted to hit
this one quickly:
On Oct 28, 2008, at 8:35 PM, Bhatia, Manav (Manav) wrote:
The author list here does not match the first page. Should some of
these move to a "Contributors" section?
Will fix this.
Please see m
I made an editorial comment in my gen-art review of draft-ietf-isis-
hmac-sha-05, below:
On Oct 28, 2008, at 4:37 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
-- Section 8
The author list here does not match the first page. Should some of
these move to a "Contributors" section?
I have since ha
I got a failure report for [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Can that be updated to a
current address prior to publication?
Thanks!
Ben.
On Oct 28, 2008, at 4:37 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
Document: draft-ietf-isis-hmac-sha-05
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2008-10-28
IETF LC End Date: 2008-11-04
Document: draft-ietf-isis-hmac-sha-05
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2008-10-28
IETF LC End Date: 2008-11-04
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary:
This draft is almost ready for publication as an RFC. (The draft does
not identify the intended status--I assume it to be standards
On Oct 13, 2008, at 6:20 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi Ben,
Thanks for the time and effort.
Responding as an author not as a WG chair...
Section 2.1, paragraph 3:
The last sentence is confusing. "...until the LSR that can process
it." does not seem to describe an event that one can wait "
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-pce-path-key-03
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2008-10-13
IETF LC End Date: 2008-10-22
Summary:
This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard. I
have a few
: draft-bryant-mpls-tp-jwt-report-00
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date:
IESG Telechat date: 09 Oct 2008
Summary:
(I was assigned this both as a LC review and a telechat review--with
the telechat oddly happening before the end of the LC. Hopefully this
review can serve both purposes.)
This
-dtls-srtp-05
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2008-09-30
IETF LC End Date: 2008-10-02
Summary:
This document is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard.
I have a point of confusion that should be addressed prior to
publication, as well as a few nits and editorial comments
but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'XMLSIG' is defined on line 798, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
On Mar 18, 2008, at 2:49 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
--General:
I'd like to see some text clarifying the relationshi
-smime-cms-rsa-kem-05
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2008-06-30
IETF LC End Date: 2008-07-04
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed
standard. I have one substantive comment which should be considered
prior to publication, and a few
: draft-ietf-rserpool-threats-13
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 13 June 2008
IESG Telechat date: 19 June 2008
Summary:
This version is ready for publication as an informational RFC
Comments:
None.
Thanks!
Ben.
___
IETF mailing list
IETF
-ecc-new-mac-07
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2008-06-05
IETF LC End Date: 2008-06-11
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary:
This draft is ready for publication as an informational RFC
Comments:
None.
Thanks!
Ben.
___
IETF mailing list
strand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
>
>> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
>> you may receive.
>
>> Document: draft-freed-sieve-date-index-11
>> Reviewer: Ben Campbell
>> Review Date: 2008-05-23
>> IETF LC End Dat
201 - 300 of 311 matches
Mail list logo
