Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry-02

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 11 September 2015 13:33 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D0BB4580F7F@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com>
References: <03e701d0eb90$32d0d830$98728890$@gmail.com> <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D0BB4580F7F@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:33:15 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-eMd-zsF3+K3th+vvZDAtMuaRBjepoGOp7RpFd0qjKZxg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
To: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11439d7807cb92051f78c20c"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/HL9-x3rRado6fJaWSADemmtUdNw>
Cc: gen-art <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry.all@tools.ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry-02
Precedence: list

Hi, Roni,

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

Spencer

On Sep 10, 2015 16:35, "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Roni, see replies below,
>
> Al
>
> From: Roni Even [mailto:ron.even.tlv@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 2:16 AM
> To: draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry.all@tools.ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
> Cc: gen-art@ietf.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].
>
>
>
>

[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ippm-ow… Roni Even
Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ipp… MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ipp… Roni Even
Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ipp… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ipp… Jari Arkko