ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry-02

2015-09-10 22:40:54
Hi Al,

OK,  I understand now.

So I have no comments.

Roni

 

From: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) [mailto:acmorton(_at_)att(_dot_)com] 
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 12:32 AM
To: Roni Even; 
draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry(_dot_)all(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry-02

 

Hi Roni, see replies below,

Al

From: Roni Even [mailto:ron(_dot_)even(_dot_)tlv(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 2:16 AM
To: draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry(_dot_)all(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org; 
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry-02

 

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-ippm-owamp-registry-02

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2015-9-9

IETF LC End Date: 2015-9-10

IESG Telechat date: 

 

Summary: This draft is almost for publication as an Standard Track  RFC.

 

 

Major issues:

 

 

Minor issues:

 

The document registers IKEv2-derived Shared Secret Key in section 3.2.4. Why
here and not in draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-11.  I suggest deleting the
registration of IKEv2-derived Shared Secret Key from here. Otherwise
draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-11 should be normative reference since the [RFC TBD]
depends on it and it may cause a delay in publication and creation of the
registry.

[ACM] It's here because the IESG review of draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec spawned the
question,

"can we quickly create the needed registry for OWAMP?"  As a result of
discussion and agreement,

draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec provides all the IANA Considerations for the TWAMP
Registries, 

and this draft (which draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec is waiting for, not the other
way around)

provides all the IANA considerations to create the new OWAMP registries.

 

Nits/editorial comments:

In sections 3.1.2 and 3.2.2 the policy should be "IETF review" and not "IETF
consensus"  according to section 4.1 in RFC5226

[ACM] I see, the terminology has changed:

IETF Review - (Formerly called "IETF Consensus" in

            [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226#ref-IANA-CONSIDERATIONS> ]) New values
are assigned only through

            RFCs that have been shepherded through the IESG as AD-

            Sponsored or IETF WG Documents [RFC3932
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3932> ] [RFC3978
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3978> ].

 

 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>