[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-groves-megaco-pkgereg-02
"McCann Peter-A001034" <pete.mccann@motorola.com> Mon, 23 February 2009 18:49 UTC
Return-Path: <pete.mccann@motorola.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6902A3A68C7 for <gen-art@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:49:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0VZqRBoqHIPo for <gen-art@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:49:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com (mail119.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.195]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5301B3A68B2 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:49:49 -0800 (PST)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: pete.mccann@motorola.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-9.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1235415001!30105435!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [136.182.1.13]
Received: (qmail 25429 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2009 18:50:01 -0000
Received: from motgate3.mot.com (HELO motgate3.mot.com) (136.182.1.13) by server-9.tower-119.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 23 Feb 2009 18:50:01 -0000
Received: from il27exr01.cig.mot.com ([10.17.196.70]) by motgate3.mot.com (8.12.11/Motorola) with ESMTP id n1NIo1a6005193 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 11:50:01 -0700 (MST)
Received: from il27vts02.mot.com (il27vts02.cig.mot.com [10.17.196.86]) by il27exr01.cig.mot.com (8.13.1/Vontu) with SMTP id n1NIo19i021622 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:50:01 -0600 (CST)
Received: from de01exm67.ds.mot.com (de01exm67.am.mot.com [10.176.8.18]) by il27exr01.cig.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id n1NIo0B3021603 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:50:01 -0600 (CST)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:50:00 -0500
Message-ID: <BE4B07D4197BF34EB3B753DD34EBCD130361FB1B@de01exm67.ds.mot.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART review of draft-groves-megaco-pkgereg-02
thread-index: AcmV54eB/l/8CVW/Si2vPLOeBzvtJw==
From: McCann Peter-A001034 <pete.mccann@motorola.com>
To: gen-art@ietf.org, draft-groves-megaco-pkgereg@tools.ietf.org
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-groves-megaco-pkgereg-02
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:49:50 -0000
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-groves-megaco-pkgereg-02 Reviewer: Peter J. McCann Review Date: 23 February 2009 IETF LC End Date: 23 February 2009 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready with nits, if the IESG wants to change the IANA considerations for H.248. Major issues: This document inserts an expert review procedure in the allocation policy for new H.248 packages/error codes/service change/profiles. This is probably a good thing but I have not been following the history of the H.248 effort so I'm not aware of any problems that have occurred under the existing allocation policies. The IESG should weigh carefully whether the allocation policy really needs changing. Minor issues: In a couple of places the document gives special treatment to "recognized standards bodies." How does a standards body become "recognized" by the IETF? Should we specify that a liaison relationship must be in place? Section 4.2 states that a specification is required for review by the designated expert, but it seems to allow that this specification isn't publicly available. Should there be a requirement at least for public packages that the specification be public? Nits/editorial comments: Section 1: OLD: Given this situation, it is appropriate that the H.248/Package Package definition NEW: Given this situation, it is appropriate that the H.248/Package definition Section 4.2: OLD: 2) The package requester shall provide a contact name, email and postal addresses for that contact shall be specified. NEW: 2) The package requester shall provide a contact name, and an email and postal address for that contact shall be specified. OLD: provided available for review NEW: provided and available for review OLD: 5) Package names are allocated on a first come-first served if all other conditions are met. NEW: 5) Package names are allocated on a first come-first served basis if all other conditions are met. Section 5.1: OLD: shall forward to received information NEW: shall forward the received information Section 5.2: OLD: On the request for an Error Code registration, the IANA shall forward to received information (i.e. the Error Code text (Specification required) to the IESG appointed expert for review (See section 4.3). NEW: On the request for an Error Code registration, the IANA shall forward the received information (i.e. the Error Code text and required specification) to the IESG appointed expert for review (See section 4.3). Section 5.3: OLD: On the request for an Error Code registration, the IANA shall forward to received information (i.e. the Service Change Reason text (Specification required) to the IESG appointed expert for review (See section 4.4). NEW: On the request for an Service Change Reason registration, the IANA shall forward the received information (i.e. the Service Change Reason text and required specification) to the IESG appointed expert for review (See section 4.4).
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-groves-megaco-p… McCann Peter-A001034
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-groves-mega… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-groves-mega… Christian Groves
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-groves-mega… McCann Peter-A001034
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-groves-mega… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-groves-mega… Christian Groves
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-groves-mega… Christian Groves
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-groves-mega… McCann Peter-A001034
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-groves-mega… Christian Groves
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-groves-mega… McCann Peter-A001034
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-groves-mega… Cullen Jennings