Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-karp-isis-analysis-04

[Uma Chunduri <[e-mail]>]

Hi Brian,

> However, note that an IANA Considerations section is always required, even if it says that no IANA action is necessary.

I removed this as per the guidance of Amanda (IANA).  I am not sure it's always required. Amanda, could you please confirm on this?

Thanks!

--
Uma C.

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 4:37 PM
To: Uma Chunduri; [e-mail]; General Area Review Team
Subject: Re: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-karp-isis-analysis-04

That looks fine (in the -06), thanks.

However, note that an IANA Considerations section is always required, even if it says that no IANA action is necessary.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 30/06/2015 08:38, Uma Chunduri wrote:
> Hi Brian,
> 
> Thanks for your consideration and for providing the modified text quickly.  That works and it's a great help.
> Shall update this in the next version.
> --
> Uma C.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 1:32 PM
> To: Uma Chunduri; [e-mail]; General 
> Area Review Team
> Subject: Re: Gen-ART Last Call review of 
> draft-ietf-karp-isis-analysis-04
> 
> Hi Uma,
> 
> See below...
> On 30/06/2015 06:19, Uma Chunduri wrote:
>> Hi Brian,
>>
>> Thanks for your review (apologies for the delay from my side). 
>> Response i-line [Uma]:
>>
>> --
>> Uma C.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 7:37 PM
>> To: [e-mail]; General Area Review 
>> Team
>> Subject: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-karp-isis-analysis-04
>>
>> 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-karp-isis-analysis-04.txt
>> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
>> Review Date: 2015-06-13
>> IETF LC End Date: 2015-07-03
>> IESG Telechat date:
>>
>> Summary:  Almost ready
>> --------
>>
>> Minor Issue:
>> ------------
>>
>>> 3.2.  Key Management Protocols
>>
>> I don't like the references to expired drafts. These drafts almost have the flavour of normative references, since apparently they described recommended mitigation techniques. If they matter, they should be properly available.
>> draft-weis-gdoi-mac-tek-03
>> draft-yeung-g-ikev2-08
>> draft-hartman-karp-mrkmp-05
>>
>> [Uma]:  Sure. But to give a bit context quickly -
>>
>> KARP WG started working on group keying protocol based on IKEv2 when I used these references. But, later scope is changed and this aspect didn't go forward as expected. 
>> So I would remove the references to draft-yeung-g-ikev2-08 and 
>> draft-hartman-karp-mrkmp-05.  However, though expired, I would like 
>> to keep the reference for
>>  draft-weis-gdoi-mac-tek-03 and  associated RFC 6407, so in future it can present a good reference to GDOI in this context.  Hope this is acceptable else I shall remove this too. 
> 
> Thanks for the answer. I am still a bit concerned that a reader will be slightly confused, though. Can I suggest trying to rephrase the sentence a bit, something like:
> 
> OLD:
>    A mechanism,
>    similar to as described in [I-D.weis-gdoi-mac-tek] can be used to
>    distribute group keys to a group of ISes in Level-1 area or Level-2
>    domain, using GDOI as specified in [RFC6407].
> 
> NEW:
>    A mechanism is needed to distribute group keys to a group of ISes
>    in a Level-1 area or Level-2 domain, using the Group Domain of
>    Interpretation (GDOI) protocol as specified in [RFC6407]. An example
>    policy and payload format was described in [I-D.weis-gdoi-mac-tek].
> 
> Regards
>     Brian
>