Hi Al, OK, I understand now. So I have no comments. Roni From: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) [mailto:acmorton@xxxxxxx] Hi Roni, see replies below, Al From: Roni Even [mailto:ron.even.tlv@xxxxxxxxx] 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-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry-02 Reviewer: Roni Even Review Date:2015–9-9 IETF LC End Date: 2015–9-10 IESG Telechat date: Summary: This draft is almost for publication as an Standard Track RFC. Major issues: Minor issues: The document registers IKEv2-derived Shared Secret Key in section 3.2.4. Why here and not in draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-11. I suggest deleting the registration of IKEv2-derived Shared Secret Key from here. Otherwise draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-11 should be normative reference since the [RFC TBD] depends on it and it may cause a delay in publication and creation of the registry. [ACM] It’s here because the IESG review of draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec spawned the question, “can we quickly create the needed registry for OWAMP?” As a result of discussion and agreement, draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec provides all the IANA Considerations for the TWAMP Registries, and this draft (which draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec is waiting for, not the other way around) provides all the IANA considerations to create the new OWAMP registries. Nits/editorial comments: In sections 3.1.2 and 3.2.2 the policy should be “IETF review” and not “IETF consensus” according to section 4.1 in RFC5226 [ACM] I see, the terminology has changed: IETF Review - (Formerly called "IETF Consensus" in [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]) New values are assigned only through RFCs that have been shepherded through the IESG as AD- Sponsored or IETF WG Documents [RFC3932] [RFC3978]. |