[Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-hansen-scram-sha256

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Thu, 02 April 2015 18:42 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF52D1A0191; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 11:42:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 e0mqlSCCGz9v; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 11:42:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB28C1A0263; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 11:42:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unnumerable-2.local (pool-71-170-237-80.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [71.170.237.80]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t32IftOc081439 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 2 Apr 2015 13:41:55 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host pool-71-170-237-80.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [71.170.237.80] claimed to be unnumerable-2.local
Message-ID: <551D8D6E.8010307@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2015 13:41:50 -0500
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-hansen-scram-sha256@ietf.org, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/veY6T0yGNVSCkY1GpKjz62a5v8Q>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-hansen-scram-sha256
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 02 Apr 2015 18:42:19 -0000

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-hansen-scram-sha256
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 2Apr2015
IETF LC End Date: 24Apr2015
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: Ready for publication as Informational, with nits that should 
be considered.

Nits/editorial comments:

Nit:
It raises flags for me when an Informational document uses "Updates" on 
a standards track document.
I would argue that this does _not_ update 5802. IANA did the things that 
5802 requested, and this document
is requesting something else that happens to change those things. That 
makes this more of a "see also" than
a "the protocol changed", and I think the Updates should be removed.

I don't feel super strongly about the difference in _this particular 
case_, hence its classification as a Nit.
But for consistency, and avoiding the issue of having an Informational 
update a PS, I hope you choose to remove it.

Editorial comment:
The URLs in the references section seem superfluous since you've already 
expanded them in the introduction?