[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of RFC5591 to DS

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Fri, 29 April 2011 21:40 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
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 6A1CEE0670; Fri, 29 Apr 2011 14:40:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.367
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.367 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.232, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gqo5QuhD9vsN; Fri, 29 Apr 2011 14:40:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (shaman.nostrum.com [72.232.179.90]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C44E1E0593; Fri, 29 Apr 2011 14:40:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.6] (cpe-76-183-178-106.tx.res.rr.com [76.183.178.106]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p3TLdNc8053997 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 29 Apr 2011 16:39:24 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 16:39:23 -0500
Message-Id: <0A1C7A3D-A24D-4735-8660-CF17EC10C104@nostrum.com>
To: rfc5591.all@tools.ietf.org, The IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 76.183.178.106 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org Review Team" <gen-art@ietf.org>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of RFC5591 to DS
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 29 Apr 2011 21:40:40 -0000

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: RFC5591 and report-rfc5343-5590-5591-5953.txt
Reviewer: Ben Campbell	
Review Date: 2011-04-29
IETF LC End Date: 2011-05-03

Summary: RFC5591 is likely ready to progress to draft standard. However, there are some features of the RFC for which it is not clear to me if they have been sufficiently tested.

Major issues:

None

Minor issues:

Section 6 of the interoperability report describes a failure to interop due to one implementation incorrectly not setting the security parameters of a response to match those of the request. The report recognized that implementations should do this--but I must point out this is a MUST level requirement in RFC5591. The report recognized that this was an implementation bug. But the report does not explicitly indicate whether a successful test when (and if) the bug was fixed. (I can only assume it was fixed and retested, since this would seem to block the other test results.)

Both section 6 and 7 of the interoperability report list the snmpTsmConfigurationUsePrefix configuration feature as untestable or untested. It's not clear to me why this was considered untestable, and I am agnostic on whether it's okay to progress without testing this feature. I mention it only to to make sure people better suited to judge the subtleties have noticed and thought about it.

Nits/editorial comments:

None