Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-gellens-lost-validation-05

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Sat, 07 March 2020 17:12 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <158359992748.18202.12983638738306302302@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <158359992748.18202.12983638738306302302@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2020 12:12:34 -0500
Message-ID: <CALaySJLjDzMSjq3rwpY4cGLO4dxB8gEvS4KKX18HxYcw9iuVBA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>
Cc: draft-gellens-lost-validation.all@ietf.org, gen-art@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e6fcf205a046e076"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/sbqVgechxHQ7kvuBK9vSTWMLFP8>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-gellens-lost-validation-05
Precedence: list

Thanks, Pete, for a very helpful review.

Barry

On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 11:52 AM Pete Resnick via Datatracker <
noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

> Reviewer: Pete Resnick
> Review result: Not Ready
>
> 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
>
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Document: draft-gellens-lost-validation-05
> Reviewer: Pete Resnick
> Review Date: 2020-03-07
> IETF LC End Date: 2020-03-31
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>
> Summary:
>
> Abstract, Scope, and Introduction do not accurately reflect the content of
> the
> document, which is not simply a registration.
>
> Major issues:
>
> The Abstract and sections 1 & 2 (Scope and Introduction) indicate that this
> document is simply an IANA registration of an S-NAPTR Application Service
> Tag.
> However, section 3 is quite clearly new protocol, some of which changes
> how RFC
> 5222 implementations should operate if used in a particular context, and
> section 4 lays out the backward compatibility of this new protocol with
> legacy
> RFC 5222 implementations. There is the implication that the NENA i3
> documents
> will actually be the home of that protocol, but the current i3 document
> referenced here does not do so, making this document the canonical
> statement of
> the protocol operations necessary to implement the i3 architecture. That
> doesn't seem appropriate for an Informational document that purports to
> simply
> be a registration.
>
> At the very least, the Abstract, Scope, and Intro would need to be updated
> to
> reflect the actual contents of the document. I think things would be better
> served by making this a Proposed Standard document so that it gets the
> appropriate level of review. I understand from the Shepherd writeup that
> the
> ECRIT WG doesn't have the energy to really work on this document. However,
> this
> is a simple enough extension to the LoST protocol that I think it's
> unproblematic to have it as an AD-sponsored standards track document.
>
>
>
>

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ge… Barry Leiba