ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Gen-art (second) LC review: draft-hansen-scram-sha256

2015-08-04 13:44:09
(apologies to the genart list who will see this as a duplicate):

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-hansen-scram-sha256
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 04-Aug-2015
IETF LC End Date: 25-Aug-2015
IESG Telechat date: not yet on any telechat

Summary: Ready for publication as a Proposed Standard

The change to PS addresses the concern I expressed in the review below.
miniscule-nit: I still think the extra URI section after the references is not needed.

RjS

On 4/2/15 1:41 PM, Robert Sparks 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 comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-hansen-scram-sha256
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 2Apr2015
IETF LC End Date: 24Apr2015
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: Ready for publication as Informational, with nits that should be considered.

Nits/editorial comments:

Nit:
It raises flags for me when an Informational document uses "Updates" on a standards track document. I would argue that this does _not_ update 5802. IANA did the things that 5802 requested, and this document is requesting something else that happens to change those things. That makes this more of a "see also" than
a "the protocol changed", and I think the Updates should be removed.

I don't feel super strongly about the difference in _this particular case_, hence its classification as a Nit. But for consistency, and avoiding the issue of having an Informational update a PS, I hope you choose to remove it.

Editorial comment:
The URLs in the references section seem superfluous since you've already expanded them in the introduction?

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Gen-art (second) LC review: draft-hansen-scram-sha256, Robert Sparks <=