Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review: draft-ietf-tls-dtls-heartbeat-03.txt

Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> Fri, 28 October 2011 16:15 UTC

Return-Path: <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E54A21F8B37 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:15:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.731
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.731 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.867, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zt9koWc0HMxw for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:15:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F0AC21F8AE1 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:15:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws5 with SMTP id 5so4227996vws.31 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:15:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=noe4Xzj2j7EhS/0lKdgJQA01k7LiVFyYwCC6knvmNa8=; b=vMaBRBSaBfCgQqzuoNGfwl40FKLufkOL6HtDW6NhX6BZYQPEzIZTUP3SVKG9WRhs/J c0bWv5aZNaj42xuFMc7ZxH29Ck0vPZYuJuQExHalcphwhheVEWnO9IUiUJ/8Dkssl5or 6YCZc8LfOQoTuJXAAgZnhvTuhBpthbXGIN9to=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.28.140 with SMTP id b12mr762917vdh.2.1319818552138; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:15:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.169.164 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:15:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <A6BADDAE-B891-4A1B-B832-E4438C294730@fh-muenster.de>
References: <CAHBDyN5L9a6UY6seczmw=S_Wmu3YwZnbJ+dhtqw2D95ZEqva=Q@mail.gmail.com> <A6BADDAE-B891-4A1B-B832-E4438C294730@fh-muenster.de>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:15:52 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHBDyN5M7HE1d7Fi1Mc2CEK12-vVne_5Fz885nvknosdbD90Rw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
To: Michael Tuexen <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf307812c4f7da5404b05e33cb"
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-tls-dtls-heartbeat.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review: draft-ietf-tls-dtls-heartbeat-03.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 16:15:55 -0000

Michael,

One response inline below [MB].

Thanks,
Mary.

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Michael Tuexen <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>wrote:

> Mary,
>
> thank you very much for the review.
> See my comments in-line.
>
> Best regards
> Michael
>
> On Oct 28, 2011, at 5:56 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
>
> > 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 wait for direction from your document shepherd
> > or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
> >
> > Document: draft-ietf-tls-dtls-heartbeat-03.txt
> > Reviewer:  Mary Barnes
> > Review Date:  28 Oct 2011
> > IETF LC Date:  18 Oct 2011
> > IESG Telechat Date:  3 Nov 2011
> >
> > Summary:  Ready with editorial comments
> >
> > Editorial:
> >
> > 1) Section 2 (1st P, last sentence).  The following sentence needs some
> work (there's a missing noun before the SHOULD) - I suggest something like
> the following:
> > OLD:
> > If an endpoint has indicated peer_not_allowed_to_send and receives a
> > HeartbeatRequest message SHOULD drop the message silently and MAY
> > send an unexpected_message Alert message.
> >
> > NEW:
> > If an endpoint that has indicated peer_not_allowed_to_send receives a
> HeartbeatRequest message, the endpoint SHOULD drop the message silently and
> MAY send an unexpected_message Alert message.
> I agree. I made the change in our CVS version, so the change will be
> included in the next revision.
> >
> > 2) Section 3: Should the "has to be" in this sentence be a MUST?
> >    Whenever a HeartbeatRequest message is
> >    received, it has to be answered with a corresponding
> >    HeartbeatResponse message.
> I think SHOULD is better since the next sentences describe exceptions.
> I changed it to SHOULD in CVS. If this change is not OK for you,
> please let me know.
>
[MB] I think SHOULD is fine. [/MB]

>
> Again: Thank you very much for the comments.
>
>