Genart last call review of draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-05

Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Tue, 05 September 2017 01:25 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBB391321A5; Mon, 4 Sep 2017 18:25:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
To: <gen-art@ietf.org>
Cc: kitten@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis.all@ietf.org
Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-05
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.59.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <150457472979.28661.15542249793619015627@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2017 18:25:29 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/xLZkgDBVyshj48FfVbxmLmPATwU>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 05 Sep 2017 01:25:30 -0000

Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review result: 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-ietf-kitten-rfc5653bis-05
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2017-09-04
IETF LC End Date: 2017-09-11
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC.

Reviewer note: The reviewer concentrated on the changes from the previous RFC,
and did not attempt to review the code.  The changes seem clear and
understandable.

Major issues: N/A

Minor issues: N/A

Nits/editorial comments:  N/A