IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-46

Joerg Ott <ott@in.tum.de> Thu, 04 July 2019 19:26 UTC

Return-Path: <ott@in.tum.de>
X-Original-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A42461201EF; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 12:26:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 xeX2dRGc8BKg; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 12:26:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out2.informatik.tu-muenchen.de (mail-out2.in.tum.de [131.159.0.36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72E5B120188; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 12:26:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.in.tum.de (Postfix, from userid 107) id CC80E1C0354; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 21:26:03 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (Authenticated sender: ott) by mail.in.tum.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5A55B1C034C; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 21:26:01 +0200 (CEST) (Extended-Queue-bit tech_wttge@fff.in.tum.de)
To: Suresh Krishnan <Suresh@kaloom.com>
Cc: Nabil Benamar <n.benamar@est.umi.ac.ma>, Joerg Ott <jo@acm.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, "its@ietf.org" <its@ietf.org>, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, "draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb.all@ietf.org>, CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>, "tsv-art@ietf.org" <tsv-art@ietf.org>
References: <156165351682.21357.6959207590092474225@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAD8vqFcP6DtCY_v1tkew+wYr6VeyEgbAvG9RLOT1g=s7BS67pQ@mail.gmail.com> <b376e7bf-253b-e50e-12c6-7ba7e5dc52a8@in.tum.de> <FA5E9B06-195E-4834-A070-404B55A695A7@kaloom.com>
From: Joerg Ott <ott@in.tum.de>
Message-ID: <c7fb7ada-f087-b3a3-503f-b2755ab1181f@in.tum.de>
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2019 21:26:00 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <FA5E9B06-195E-4834-A070-404B55A695A7@kaloom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/gLqSuAgZxlVWdsdvwyE6r1cK5Gc>
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-46
X-BeenThere: tsv-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <tsv-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsv-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsv-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2019 19:26:08 -0000

Hi,

re claritry: given the number of more than nits I found, the document
is clearly not ready.  And, sure, once you read something a number of
times (and were part of the discussion), this clearly has an effect.

Re patent jargon: ok.  I just looked at the IPR page and didn't see
anything come up.  It still appears strange to me to use this kind of
language in an Internet Draft.

Jörg

On 04.07.19 19:26, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> Hi Joerg,
>    I just want to respond to two of your comments. I will let the authors chime in on the other comments.
> 
>> On Jul 4, 2019, at 10:42 AM, Joerg Ott <ott@in.tum.de> wrote:
>> ...
>> I am sorry but this is not acceptable.  You are asking other people
>> to read the document and comment on it.  As such, we may certainly
>> expect that what we get to review in last call is ready for RFC.
>> This document clearly is not.
> 
> Are their specific parts of the document that you are concerned about here on the clarity front? I have read the document and have not had any clarity issues (but that might be because I have been reading this for too long).
> 
>> ...
>>>     Detailed comments:
>>>     In several places, the text reminds of patent jargon. Should I
>>>     worry? There doesn't appear
>>>     to be any IPR disclosure.
>>
>> Here, I'd really like to get an explicit response.
> 
> The authors have confirmed that they have filed any necessary IPR disclosures as per BCP78/79 as documented in the shepherd writeup.
> 
> Thanks
> Suresh
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email