Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-httpauth-mutual-10

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Thu, 03 November 2016 10:53 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 7FD751294D2 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 03:53:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.397
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497] 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 7Y1qQYbYFTSM for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 03:52:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A33F812949F for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 03:52:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFD642CED2; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 12:52:56 +0200 (EET) (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 aO2IpJK57eM9; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 12:52:56 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5C9F2CEBC; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 12:52:55 +0200 (EET) (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=_36A05C9B-5BD8-45B3-89F3-9E50A64524AB"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <ABCAA4EF18F17B4FB619EA93DEF7939A4E7A7118@eusaamb107.ericsson.se>
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2016 12:52:54 +0200
Message-Id: <9C244FD1-4145-4650-B3D2-81B5BF381890@piuha.net>
References: <ABCAA4EF18F17B4FB619EA93DEF7939A4E7A7118@eusaamb107.ericsson.se>
To: Meral Shirazipour <meral.shirazipour@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/c_ARJnZl5YtqaqDxkbuqa2uWLYY>
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-httpauth-mutual.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-httpauth-mutual.all@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-httpauth-mutual-10
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, 03 Nov 2016 10:53:00 -0000

Thanks for the review! Authors, did you note the comments?

Jari

On 26 Oct 2016, at 02:29, Meral Shirazipour <meral.shirazipour@ericsson.com> 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-ietf-httpauth-mutual-10
> Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour
> Review Date:             2016-10-25
> IETF LC End Date:     2016-10-25
> IESG Telechat date: 2016-11-03
> 
> Summary:
> This draft is ready to be published as Experimental RFC, but I have some comments.
> 
> Major issues:
> Minor issues:
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> -General: the introduction should clarify the downside or extra complexity with the proposed method (does the client need to be modified? what was the reason the web did not opt for this method at first place? are there cases where this method cannot be applied?
> 
> -[Page 4], "are a one of"----->"are one of"
> 
> -[Page 46], Section 18, not sure if it should be left in the RFC or removed? Please check with chair or Responsible AD.
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> Meral
> ---
> Meral Shirazipour
> Ericsson Research
> www.ericsson.com
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art