Subject: [Gen-art] Assignments for Dec 1st, 2005

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 23:02:17 -0600

Here's the preliminary assignments for Dec 1st based on the current
agenda:
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/reviewers-051201.html

About a quarter of the docs have already been reviewed and another
quarter are re-reviews, so the load isn't too bad (as long as the agenda
doesn't change too much over the next week).    

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

Note that the spreadsheets may not included any LC reviews updated since
last Friday, but I will have those updates and new LC assignment out by
Friday of this week. 

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: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 16:20:13 -0500

This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.

(I checked the differences from the previous version.  There is a nice 
elaboration on a security issue that had not even bothered me the first 
time. Nothing else appeared to be substantive.)

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

-------------------------

Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4 and DHCPv6) Option for Civic 
Addresses Configuration Information (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 2
     <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil-07.txt>draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil-07.txt 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=1592&filename=draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil>[Open 
Web Ballot]
     Note: Back on to check RFC Editor notes

Token: <mailto:[email-masked]>Ted Hardie
Reviewer:  Joel Halpern (reviewed -06)

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 17:12:46 -0500

This individual contribution for informational RFC appears to be ready for 
publication.

The text in section 5 raised a question.  If this is intended to be read by 
folks who are not security experts, an explanation of what the algorithm is 
to be used for in lay terms would be helpful.  The text says in section 5
    Please note that UHASH has certain combinatoric properties making it
    suitable for Wegman-Carter message authentication.  UHASH is not a
    cryptographic hash function and is not a suitable general replacement
    for functions like SHA-1.
So there are clearly cases to use and not use this material.

minor:  I would suggest that the phrase in the introduction describing the 
absence of intellectual property claims should probably include "to date".

----
UMAC: Message Authentication Code using Universal Hashing (Informational) - 
1 of 1
     <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-krovetz-umac-07.txt>draft-krovetz-umac-07.txt

Token:  <mailto:[email-masked]>Russ Housley
Reviewer: Joel Halpern