Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-pwe3-static-pw-status-10

Ben Campbell <> Mon, 30 April 2012 18:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD4AB21F88F4; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:32:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.467
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.133, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r7y2YUjxQnNV; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:32:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 262F621F88F1; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:32:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q3UIWHb9039603 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:32:18 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Ben Campbell <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:32:26 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
Received-SPF: pass ( is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: " Review Team" <>,, The IETF <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-pwe3-static-pw-status-10
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:32:20 -0000

On Apr 30, 2012, at 12:25 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:

> Hi Ben
> Thank you for your review.
> The IANA policy is stated as IETF Review (end of first para in IANA)

Okay, I guess I just missed it.

> The normative text is deliberate - this was part of the change that we needed to make.

Then as a reviewer, I think the proposed text is a bit confusing, as a paragraph describing how one element operates seems to make a normative requirement on the behavior of a different element. It would be better to make that assertion in the description of behavior for that other element. This is not a big deal, and certainly not a show stopper if people are attached to the current approach. It's just a personal opinion.

(Sorry, I'd offer more specifics, but am not in a position to pull up the text at the moment, so I'm responding from memory. I will look again when I get the chance.)