Subject: [Gen-art] Assignments for Oct 13th, 2005

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 21:57:15 -0500

Here's the assignments for next week - Oct 13th:
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/reviewers-051013.html

It's not too bad of an agenda: there are 10 agenda items with 13
documents total, a cute coincidence.  There are also no LC reviews
queued, as the only one I had in my backlog to assign is on this week's
agenda. 

Corresponding spreadsheets are available:
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-by-reviewer.html

Let me know if you see any issues or errors.

Mary

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 15:23:02 -0400

This document is probably ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.

Reading the instructions here, I believe as written they conform to RFC 2434.
However, personally, I find the descriptions here somewhat insufficient.
There are a number of registered values with a short description and no 
reference as to where one would find the full description.  While one is 
allowed to set up a registry this way, it seems a bad idea.  A registry 
ought to serve two functions:
1) Prevent collision
2) allow the reader to determine the meaning of the code points
Some of the items include RFC references.
Many of the items registered here do not include such indications.
And the text for future registrations does not even ask for such 
pointers.  (And by having low length limits, it may even be difficult to 
include useful references.)
Shouldn't the FCFS particularly at least allow for a pointer to the meaning 
so that folks can try to re-use points?

The other aspect that strikes me is that this document provides for 
extensive "expert review" with absolutely no indication of what the expert 
would be looking for.  I realize (and agree with) the goal that an expert 
reviewer should use his judgement.  But, based on observed history, some 
indication of what he is to judge would seem helpful.

Put differently, both of these concerns can be summarized by saying that I 
find our vague handling of registries discomforting.

Yours,
Joel

PS: Brian, I am not copying the author or shepherd because I think you need 
to decide your take on these questions before they go to the relevant 
individuals.
----

INT IANA Allocations for pseudo Wire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3) (BCP) - 
3 of 5
     <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-iana-allocation-12.txt>draft-ietf-pwe3-iana-allocation-12.txt

Token: <mailto:[email-masked]>Mark Townsley
Reviewer: Joel Halpern

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 08:39:07 -0400

draft-ietf-sipping-message-tag-00.txt ...

No objection, verging on Ready (I'm 95% confident I would Support it
after a few hours of becoming less ignorant).  It makes perfect sense
to me and it should be done.