Hi, Roni,
Thank you for the review - it's always helpful ...
Spencer
On Sep 10, 2015 16:35, "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Roni, see replies below,
>
> Al
>
> From: Roni Even [mailto:ron.even.tlv@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 2:16 AM
> To: draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry.all@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx
> Cc: gen-art@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry-02
>
>
>
> 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].
>
>
>
>