[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-livingood-woundy-p4p-experiences-10

"Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@wonderhamster.org> Tue, 30 June 2009 17:05 UTC

Return-Path: <spencer@wonderhamster.org>
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 D638528C417 for <gen-art@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:05:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.376
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.376 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.223, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 LqA2nIooMrRj for <gen-art@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:05:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A91F23A68E5 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:05:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from S73602b (w173.z064002096.dfw-tx.dsl.cnc.net [64.2.96.173]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus0) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MKp8S-1MLgkc1obP-000Sqj; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:04:17 -0400
Message-ID: <2D932DE94C1B433CB8ECE50834E08224@china.huawei.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins <spencer@wonderhamster.org>
To: chris_griffiths@cable.comcast.com, Jason Livingood <jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com>, Laird Popkin <laird@pando.com>, yry@cs.yale.edu
References: <5C3B4F7EC6014E4B80680F1F6487F8E9@china.huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:03:38 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type="response"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19OfwI2rWQ7szUiK3/mdIppoE26lvzvRdxofMB URlPmkNbiQwOtER4s8/f7+X0A8sLbw0QXkNpYUg2BPQHYayoBn bSOgCsZLTY8j3KwLG+ho+PdmkaNV0QrbhVdOgGHegA=
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-livingood-woundy-p4p-experiences-10
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: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:05:35 -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 wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-livingood-woundy-p4p-experiences-10
Reviewer: Spencer Dawkins
Review Date: 30 June 2009
IESG Telechat date: 02 July 2009

Summary: This draft addresses all issues that I identified in my review of 
version 07. Ready for publication as Informational (and we need more 
Informational drafts like this one).

There is one problem that I inadvertently contributed to in my review:

I mentioned that we usually put a "please delete this section" note to the 
RFC Editor for null IANA considerations, and that's present in v10, but 
there's also a "please delete this section" note for the SECURITY 
Considerations section (which is also null, but for the right reasons). 
Since the Security Considerations section is required for all RFCs, Lisa 
should probably add a note asking the RFC Editor to ignore the note in the 
draft ;-)

Thanks (and "sorry!"),

Spencer

7.  Security Considerations

   There are no security considerations in this document.

   NOTE TO RFC EDITOR: PLEASE REMOVE THIS NULL SECTION PRIOR TO
   PUBLICATION.


8.  IANA Considerations

   There are no IANA considerations in this document.

   NOTE TO RFC EDITOR: PLEASE REMOVE THIS NULL SECTION PRIOR TO
   PUBLICATION.