[Gen-art] Gen-ART Review of draft-groves-megaco-pkgereg-03.txt

"McCann Peter-A001034" <pete.mccann@motorola.com> Tue, 19 May 2009 18:29 UTC

Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 14:30:37 -0400
Message-ID: <274D46DDEB9F2244B2F1EA66B3FF54BC0519E65F@de01exm70.ds.mot.com>
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART Review of draft-groves-megaco-pkgereg-03.txt
thread-index: AcnYr+f4L74+yDI1S+yhzPN7HFkJ9g==
From: McCann Peter-A001034 <pete.mccann@motorola.com>
To: gen-art@ietf.org, draft-groves-megaco-pkgereg@tools.ietf.org
Cc: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Review of draft-groves-megaco-pkgereg-03.txt
Precedence: list

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
<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-groves-megaco-pkgereg-03.txt
Reviewer: Pete McCann
Review Date: 19 May 2009
IESG Telechat date: 21 May 2009 

Summary: 
I reviewed -02 during last call.  The new text in the Security 
Considerations introduced a few nits, and some of my other nits 
were not addresses by the revision.  Otherwise, if the IESG is 
satisfied that specifications of public packages don't have to 
be public then the document is Ready.

Major issues: 

The question of whether public packages should have public
specifications still needs to be resolved; see the text in
Section 5.2 under item 3 subitem c.  Currently the text allows
for non-public specifications.

Minor issues: 

Nits/editorial comments: 

Section 4:

OLD:
   As at this date
NEW:
   As of this date

OLD:
   As H.248 is a master slave protocol if the malicious
NEW:
   As H.248 is a master slave protocol, if the malicious

OLD:
   there would be no affect
NEW:
   there would be no effect

Section 6.2:

OLD:
   On the request for an Error Code registration, the IANA shall forward
   thr 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 6.3:

OLD:
   On the request for an Error Code registration, the IANA shall forward
   the 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 Error Code 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