Re: [Gen-art] GenART LC review of draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-01

"Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> Mon, 03 October 2011 05:50 UTC

From: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
To: "'Murray S. Kucherawy'" <msk@cloudmark.com>, draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis.all@tools.ietf.org
References: <4e87169c.8e2bdf0a.01d9.20f0@mx.google.com> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C45D9DD7@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
In-Reply-To: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C45D9DD7@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 07:50:54 +0200
Message-ID: <4e894dcb.8425df0a.1692.ffffe960@mx.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_025C_01CC81A1.2FD68F10"
Content-language: en-us
Thread-index: AcyAPlbBDH5dlWMQStOjcRPEol3dZwBTq87QAACjsuA=
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, 'IETF-Discussion list' <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] GenART LC review of draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-01
Precedence: list

Hi,

My mistake about the document type (cut and paste problem)

As for me comment about multipart/report as part of  another multipart MIME
message, what will happen when an implementation based on RFC3462 will
receive the report according this document. Will it be processed, ignored or
take other behavior. Can the sender of the report know if it can send the
report in another multipart MIME message.

 

Thanks

Roni Even 

 

From: Murray S. Kucherawy [mailto:msk@cloudmark.com] 
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 7:29 AM
To: Roni Even; draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis.all@tools.ietf.org
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org; 'IETF-Discussion list'
Subject: RE: GenART LC review of draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-01

 

Hi Roni, thanks for your comments.

Two things in reply:

First, this is not an Informational document, it's Standards Track.  I don't
know if that changes anything in your review, however.

Second, Section 1 does describe the change being made between RFC3462 and
this document, and the rationale for doing so.  Was there some detail
missing from there that was in the Appendix that you feel should be added?

Thanks,

-MSK

From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Roni
Even
Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2011 6:31 AM
To: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis.all@tools.ietf.org
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org; 'IETF-Discussion list'
Subject: GenART LC review of draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-01

 

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-01

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date: 2011-10-1

IETF LC End Date: 2011-10-10

IESG Telechat date: 

 

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an informational RFC.


 

Major issues:

 

 

Minor issues:

I noticed that the major change from RFC 3462 in the current version is to
remove requirement that multipart/report not be contained in anything. The
changes appear in appendix B which is to be removed in the published
document.  I think that it will be better to have the change from RFC 3462
be part of the main text and also discuss what are the backward
interoperability issues if any.

 

 

Nits/editorial comments:

[Gen-art] GenART LC review of draft-ietf-appsawg-… Roni Even
Re: [Gen-art] GenART LC review of draft-ietf-apps… Murray S. Kucherawy
Re: [Gen-art] GenART LC review of draft-ietf-apps… Roni Even
Re: [Gen-art] GenART LC review of draft-ietf-apps… Murray S. Kucherawy
Re: [Gen-art] GenART LC review of draft-ietf-apps… Roni Even