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

"MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com> Thu, 10 September 2015 21:32 UTC

Return-Path: <acmorton@att.com>
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 253F01B320C; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 14:32:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 gFee3yMQoErw; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 14:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pink.research.att.com (mail-pink.research.att.com [204.178.8.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE56E1B3245; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 14:32:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-blue.research.att.com (unknown [135.207.178.11]) by mail-pink.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 279FA1228C2; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 17:58:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njfpsrvexg0.research.att.com [135.207.255.124]) by mail-blue.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C28DF04B5; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 17:32:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::108a:1006:9f54:fd90]) by NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com ([fe80::108a:1006:9f54:fd90%25]) with mapi; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 17:32:22 -0400
From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com>
To: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry.all@tools.ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 17:32:20 -0400
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry-02
Thread-Index: AdDrkAROoBpE/T0BQjqW9eQkw2ZEAQAftlLw
Message-ID: <4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D0BB4580F7F@NJFPSRVEXG0.research.att.com>
References: <03e701d0eb90$32d0d830$98728890$@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <03e701d0eb90$32d0d830$98728890$@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4AF73AA205019A4C8A1DDD32C034631D0BB4580F7FNJFPSRVEXG0re_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/QbCfeXDmZqDzgc1i7SE2_zDKtBg>
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry-02
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: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:32:28 -0000

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<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>].