Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-06
Samu Varjonen <Samu.Varjonen@hiit.fi> Fri, 12 February 2016 10:59 UTC
Return-Path: <Samu.Varjonen@hiit.fi>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79A111B435A for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 02:59:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2CIx1Nso-JLI for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 02:59:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from argo.otaverkko.fi (argo.ipv6.otaverkko.fi [IPv6:2a02:4880:10:1000::2:25]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55CFF1B4355 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 02:59:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.otaverkko.fi (hydra.otaverkko.fi [212.68.0.4]) by argo.otaverkko.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 532742032E; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 12:59:03 +0200 (EET)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 12:59:03 +0200
From: Samu Varjonen <Samu.Varjonen@hiit.fi>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA6BEE0A45@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA6BEE0A45@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
Message-ID: <1df4929be85a40246ef4c3dbcba89774@nestor.otaverkko.fi>
X-Sender: Samu.Varjonen@hiit.fi
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.1
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/JaYblb29eKa-QB5321GAked7Z6w>
Cc: draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis.all@tools.ietf.org, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-06
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 10:59:07 -0000
Hi, answers inline. -Samu On 07.01.2016 18:53, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by > the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any > other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq [1]>. > > Document: draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-06 > > Reviewer: Dan Romascanu > > Review Date: 1/7/2016 > > IETF LC End Date: 12/28/2015 > > IESG Telechat date: > > Summary: On the right track > > The document is well structured, but there are a number of issues that > must be fixed before it is approved by the IESG. > > Major issues: > > 1. The Type number values mentioned in Section 2 (after the > certificate types table) refer to the values in RFC 6253 (that go to > 8) and not in the values in this document. > This has been fixed > 2. The IANA Considerations section needs in my opinion to be > re-written. RFC 6263 was an Experimental RFC, this document has an > Intended Status of Standards Track, it cannot just refer to the > content of the document that it is obsoleting. > This has been fixed > 3. A new Certificate type registry needs to be defined in my opinion. > Older values in the registry were 0 to 8, this document should not use > values of 0 to 4 in the same registry while some of the values have > different semantics. > We reverted to the current registry and obsoleted the SPKI format references. > Minor issues: > > 1. The front page does not provide the initials of the first name of > the authors. This may seem a nit, but there may be tools that are used > with processing the initials of the authors name. Fixed > > 2. Inconsistent use of CERT (the parameter in RFC 7401) and Cert (as > in Cert group, Cert count, etc.). Any special reason not to write > consistently CERT every place? > Fixed > 3. I am missing a section that would remain in the document (unlike > Appendix B which I suspect will be taken out at publication) and that > shortly lists the changes from RFC 6253 and their motivation. > Added. > Nits/editorial comments: > > > > Links: > ------ > [1] > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__wiki.tools.ietf.org_area_gen_trac_wiki_GenArtfaq&d=BQICAg&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31OcNXCJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=I5w-zqhErChUOoLzPbfnc5q4QAnQBWAJUImX_ocF2PI&s=G5nNtC3MnxOIveGWM1XBHjDn3cEV_Kl-HTkJ9jXPp00&e=%20
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-hip… Terry Manderson
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-hip… Samu Varjonen