Gen-ART LC review of draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis

"Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> Thu, 23 October 2014 13:46 UTC

Return-Path: <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EAD71A90EC; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 06:46:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 WEd9BYlzlqEe; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 06:46:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x235.google.com (mail-la0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 693B71A9099; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 06:46:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f53.google.com with SMTP id gq15so848577lab.40 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 06:46:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type :thread-index:content-language; bh=etXggd44M3UhXeAvuXL/qk5rKwpdaWNJSTcy/JUqzcg=; b=iOKK+QwWsEeBKY8kJwsw4we8cu4wRo/HpzNraVY95vIvNqRbA6praJg2dg6edj821n +uMxFmdx7ZVOr23VMA+PVMQWxCAdNjJ1ebqffoCtrfJ2ZYQMwT61pnsMm4Mp9DRaebtb hLAMTPeieJkKIhAoVeeOg+nghRn9dmix2iSR/QtPahzec6svNIKoIsXezXXUsAcZQPXK UCz7jVSf7+Vc7MYDiSCqKrTDoh0+NX8FcIQjQqVKFye8uQKl1+z8Neltuq7hqtkoZbDl NCsXMGC9ZPC0AKqnwfV/Rx0t3xbMTMbWVlCyPciEEkQLpMdSIGlbm9Waa3DfNd49bPto TtbQ==
X-Received: by 10.152.27.38 with SMTP id q6mr3372282lag.92.1414072001334; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 06:46:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from RoniE (bzq-79-179-96-40.red.bezeqint.net. [79.179.96.40]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id s1sm768357las.34.2014.10.23.06.46.39 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Oct 2014 06:46:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
To: <ietf@ietf.org>, <draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis.all@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 16:46:35 +0300
Message-ID: <051b01cfeec7$c5339b70$4f9ad250$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_051C_01CFEEE0.EA8196C0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: Ac/ux71zbiqXY5PoQoyT6NMpoFzwBw==
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/H8ExKTc7aaRamFX4xkzV0UwPSCc
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 13:46:47 -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-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-08

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2014-10-23

IETF LC End Date: 2014-10-30

IESG Telechat date: 

 

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a BCP RFC.

 

 

Major issues:

 

Minor issues:

 

Section 2.3 discusses the issue of defining appropriate registration policy.
I was wondering about consistency between the policies of similar
registries, is it important and how to verify it. For example the policy for
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-security-descriptions/sdp-security-desc
riptions.xhtml#sdp-security-descriptions-3>
http://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-security-descriptions/sdp-security-descr
iptions.xhtml#sdp-security-descriptions-3 is standard action and for
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/srtp-protection/srtp-protection.xhtml#srtp-
protection-1>
http://www.iana.org/assignments/srtp-protection/srtp-protection.xhtml#srtp-p
rotection-1 is specification required. I think that such cases should be
discussed when defining the registration policy.  

 

Nits/editorial comments:

In section 2.3 "judgement" should be "judgment"