IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gen-art] review: draft-sheffer-rfc6982bis-01

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Thu, 02 June 2016 12:32 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E110E12D191; Thu, 2 Jun 2016 05:32:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.326
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Se2o902QtWAx; Thu, 2 Jun 2016 05:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 875B912D182; Thu, 2 Jun 2016 05:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB9312CC6F; Thu, 2 Jun 2016 15:32:16 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EJhVY43Nr3xa; Thu, 2 Jun 2016 15:32:16 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CA1F2CC64; Thu, 2 Jun 2016 15:32:16 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_628B6F77-9B32-4C48-B617-EF473B044DCF"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <37398396-7f28-eaed-de51-a8b37b0c8c4e@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2016 15:32:15 +0300
Message-Id: <11495E22-F746-44E9-A452-6EFA4DE3E104@piuha.net>
References: <57152222.1020804@nostrum.com> <571A4CDA.800@joelhalpern.com> <37398396-7f28-eaed-de51-a8b37b0c8c4e@joelhalpern.com>
To: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/SLth-tiji9BMvRp_Ji2cz6IgpaA>
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-sheffer-rfc6982bis@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] review: draft-sheffer-rfc6982bis-01
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 02 Jun 2016 12:32:21 -0000

Thanks, all!

Jari

On 27 May 2016, at 01:07, Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:

> This revision (-01) represents a reasonable effort to address my concerns.  My thanks to the author.
> 
> The document is ready for publication as a BCP
> 
> Yours,
> Joel M. Halpern
> 
> On 4/22/16 12:10 PM, Joel M. Halpern 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>.
>> 
>> Document: draft-sheffer-rfc6982bis-00
>>    Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation
>>        Status Section
>> Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
>> Review Date: 22-April-2016
>> IETF LC End Date: 13-May-2016
>> IESG Telechat date: (if known)
>> 
>> Summary:
>> 
>> Major issues:
>> 
>> Minor issues:
>>    The introduction describes RFC1264 as requiring at least one
>> implementation.  The general requirement in RFC 1264 is multiple
>> implementations, at least two independent.  While it is a minor issue,
>> this document should characterize RFC 1264 more carefully.
>> 
>>    In the Alternative Formats section, it strikes me that there is an
>> alternative that is sometimes useful that is de-emphasised by the text
>> as written.  If there has been significant insight gained from the
>> implementations, that may be useful to capture in a longer-lived
>> context.  In that case, an RFC describing implementation may still be
>> useful.  I would appreciate it if the authors would consider adding a
>> short paragraph to this effect.
>> 
>> Nits/editorial comments:
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gen-art mailing list
>> Gen-art@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email