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>].