Subject: [Gen-art] Review assignments for 31 Aug 2006

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 22:37:30 -0500

Hi all,

Here's the assignments for the August 31st, 2006 telechat:
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/reviewers-060831.html

With the updated spreadsheets:
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-by-reviewer.html

Mary. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
The following summarizes the assignments:

RAI  Two-Document ballot: [Open Web Ballot] - 1 of 8 
     The Message Session Relay Protocol (Proposed Standard) - 1 of 8 
     draft-ietf-simple-message-sessions-15.txt  
     Relay Extensions for the Message Sessions Relay Protocol (MSRP) 
      (Proposed  Standard) 
     draft-ietf-simple-msrp-relays-08.txt  
     Token: Jon Peterson 
     Reviewer: Ron Bonica 
        
RTG  GMPLS - Communication of Alarm Information (Proposed Standard) - 2
of 8 
     draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-04.txt [Open Web Ballot]  
     Token: Ross Callon 
     Reviewer: David Black (reviewed - 03 for LC) 
        
RTG  Three-Document ballot: [Open Web Ballot] - 3 of 8 
     Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Label Switching
Router (LSR) Management Information Base (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 8 
     draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-14.txt  
     Token: Bill Fenner 
     Reviewer: Eric Gray (already reviewed for LC) 
        
     Definitions of Textual Conventions for Generalized Multiprotocol
Label 
     Switching (GMPLS) Management (Proposed Standard) 
     draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-10.txt  
     Note: Awaiting update from final MIB review. 
     Token: Bill Fenner 
     Reviewer: David Black (already reviewed for LC) 
        
     Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic
Engineering 
     Management Information Base (Proposed Standard) 
     draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-15.txt  
     Note: Awaiting update from final MIB review. 
     Token: Bill Fenner 
     Reviewer: Ron Bonica 
        
RTG  IANA Considerations for OSPF (BCP) - 4 of 8 
     draft-ietf-ospf-iana-01.txt [Open Web Ballot]  
     Token: Bill Fenner 
     Reviewer: John Loughney 
        
RTG  Autonomous System Confederations for BGP (Draft Standard) - 5 of 8 
     draft-ietf-idr-rfc3065bis-05.txt  
     Token: Bill Fenner 
     Reviewer: Harald Alvestrand (already reviewed for LC) 
        
TSV  Specifying Alternate Semantics for the Explicit Congestion
     Notification (ECN) Field (BCP) - 6 of 8 
     draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-alternates-01.txt [Open Web Ballot]  
     Note: PROTO Shepherd: James Polk ([email-masked]) 
     Token: Lars Eggert 
     Reviewer: Spencer Dawkins (already reviewed for LC) 
        
RTG  Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS using IPv6 Provider Edge 
     Routers (6PE) (Proposed Standard) - 7 of 8 
     draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-06.txt [Open Web Ballot]  
     Note: Despite its filename, this is an *IDR* working group draft. 
     Token: Bill Fenner 
     Reviewer: Spencer Dawkins (already reviewed for LC) 
        
RAI  Two-Document ballot: [Open Web Ballot] - 8 of 8 
     Media Type Registration of RTP Payload Formats (Proposed Standard)
- 8 of 8 
     draft-ietf-avt-rfc3555bis-04.txt  
     Media Type Registration of Payload Formats in the RTP Profile for 
     Audio and Video Conferences (Proposed Standard) 
     draft-ietf-avt-rfc3555bis-part2-01.txt  
     Token: Cullen Jennings 
     Reviewer: Joel Halpern (already reviewed for LC) 
      
2.2.2 Returning Item        Area Date  
APP  Calendaring Extensions to WebDAV (CalDAV) (Proposed Standard) - 1
of 2 
     draft-dusseault-caldav-13.txt [Open Web Ballot]  
     Token: Ted Hardie 
     Reviewer: Joel Halpern (already reviewed for LC) 
        
APP  SMTP Submission Service Extension for Future Message Release 
     (Proposed Standard) - 2 of 2 
     draft-vaudreuil-futuredelivery-04.txt [Open Web Ballot]  
     Note: Last Call ends on June 22, 2006 
     Token: Ted Hardie 
     Reviewer: Mary Barnes (Francis Dupont  reviewed -03 for LC ) 

INT  Goals for Network-based Localized Mobility Management (NETLMM) 
     (Informational) - 1 of 1 
     draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-req-04.txt [Open Web Ballot]  
     Token: Jari Arkko 
     Reviewer: John Loughney 
      
SEC  EAP Password Authenticated Exchange (Informational) - 1 of 3 
     draft-clancy-eap-pax-09.txt [Open Web Ballot]  
     Token: Russ Housley 
     Reviewer: Elwyn Davies (reviewed -08 for LC) 
        
RTG  RFC 1264 is Obsolete (Informational) - 2 of 3 
     draft-fenner-obsolete-1264-02.txt [Open Web Ballot]  
     Token: Ross Callon 
     Reviewer: John Loughney 
        
APP  A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for The Near Field 
     Communication Forum (NFC Forum) (Informational) - 3 of 3 
     draft-abel-nfc-urn-00.txt [Open Web Ballot]  
     Token: Ted Hardie 
     Reviewer: Michael Patton  

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

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 14:39:19 +0300

Review of draft-fenner-obsolete-1264-02.txt 

Summary: this is reasonable and it should be approved.  I have 2 small
nits, that can
be addressed or not.

Small nit #1:  In the abstract it says: 

   ... In today's Internet, there are so
   many other pressures against deploying unreasonable protocols that we
   believe that existing controls suffice, and the RFC 1264 rules just
   get in the way.

It is somewhat unclear who the 'we' is.  It would be good to clarify who
'we' are.

Small nit #2: 

   At the time of this writing, there is an IETF working group (newtrk)
   chartered to update the IETF Standards Process.  Since this work is
   ongoing, we encourage those who believe there should be different
   rules for different types of protocols to participate in that work in
   order to clarify the qualifications.  The biggest problem we've
   experienced is to perform a precise classification of when to apply
   additional constrains and when not to.

Isn't newtrk shutting down? It might not be good to encourage people to
try to
address changes in that WG, as it won't be around once this draft is
published
as an RFC.

John

---

From: "Michael A. Patton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:40:24 -0400 (EDT)

I've been having a number of computer and connectivity problems
recently.  This means that my normal load of paying work is taking
longer and I won't have any time this week to review the document I
was assigned for this Thursday's telechat:

If someone else can do a review, that would probably be good.
Otherwise, this is to let Brian know that he won't be getting one from
me.

	-MAP

P.S.  Despite being on limited availability even before these recent
problems, I seem to have a number of LC items assigned to me.  If
anyone wants to take one or two (or more) of them, that would probably
be good as well.

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:16:36 -0500

I've updated the spreadsheets with the reviews received to-date.   

As a warning, there will be at least a dozen last call assignments going
out tomorrow.  We do seem to have most everyone back from vacation, BUT
please make sure that I'm accurately tracking your availability in the
spreadsheet:
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/reviewer-availability.html

I know that some of you may be coming back from vacation with last call
assignments - I did try to give vacationers the later ones.  Also, as a
reminder, if I assign you a document for Last Call, even if you don't
get around to doing the LC review, that document is automatically
assigned to you for the telechat. For some folks, this has resulted in
alot of docs for a single telechat. I do try to round robin the Last
Call assignments evenly, but it's not always possible to avoid LC due
dates being very close since the timeline for the Last Calls varies.   

Thanks,
Mary

-----Original Message-----
From: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:B601) 
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 10:38 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Gen-art] Review assignments for 31 Aug 2006

Hi all,

Mary.

---

From: Elwyn Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 09:57:42 +0100

I've taken a quick look at this one and sent in a review.
/Elwyn

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 11:34:40 +0200

Not to worry. I will trust my fellow ADs on this one.

     Brian

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 14:07:41 +0300

I noticed that Brian has already issued his ballot on this, but I had
written-up
some rough comments on this, so I'm sending them for completeness sake.

These are mostly nits, but I generally have to say that overall, the
document
doesn't seem very readable.

1) Contributor section at the beginning seems odd, and the second
sentence seems
   a bit gratitous.  I'd suggest moving it to the acknoledge section and
dropping
   the last sentence.
      
     Gerardo Giaretta, Kent Leung, Katsutoshi Nishida, Phil Roberts, and

     Marco Liebsch all contributed major effort to this document. Their 
     names are not included in the authors' section due to the RFC 
     Editor's limit of 5 names. 

2) The 1 sentence abstract is a bit weak, I think it could state a bit
more.

3) Editorially, I found the entire document difficult to read.  It took
me
   several re-reads to make heads-or-tails of the document, but then
again, I should
   probably read drafts earlier in the day (or after a stiff cup of
coffee).

4) Some of section 2 seems like design trade-offs or design
considerations more 
   than goals.

5) Appendix, section 8.6 has an entry called Micro. but it isn't clear
if the 
   document means Cellular IP or HAWAII or generally all micromobility
protocols.

John

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 14:10:33 +0200

There have been very varied reactions to this draft. John isn't
the only person to find it unclear. I found that it explained NetLMM
to me quite well. Obviously a case of YMMV.

      Brian

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 14:10:14 +0300

no-objection