ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2015-09-11 08:33:38
Hi, Roni,

Thank you for the review - it's always helpful ...

Spencer

On Sep 10, 2015 16:35, "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton(_at_)att(_dot_)com> 
wrote:

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]) New values are assigned only through

            RFCs that have been shepherded through the IESG as AD-

            Sponsored or IETF WG Documents [RFC3932] [RFC3978].




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