Subject: [Gen-art] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 12 October 2006

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:08:52 -0500

Hi all,

Here's this week's LC assignments: 
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art.html 
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-by-reviewer.html 

I divided the set of 5 hollenbeck-epp docs amongst 5 different
reviewers, although they were last called as a set (it didn't seem fair
to dump over 200 pages of documentation on a single person).

For your convenience, the standard template is included at the end of
the assignments.  

Thanks, 
Mary. 

--------------------------- 
Reviewer: David Black

- 'PWE3 ATM Transparent Cell Transport Service '
   <draft-ietf-pwe3-cell-transport-06.txt> as a Proposed Standard

IETF LC ends on 2006-10-23.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-cell-transport-06.tx
t

--------------------------- 
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies

- 'Long-Term Archive Service Requirements '
   <draft-ietf-ltans-reqs-09.txt> as an Informational RFC

IETF LC ends on 2006-10-23.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltans-reqs-09.txt

--------------------------- 
Reviewer: Eric Gray

- 'Guidance for AAA Key Management '
   <draft-housley-aaa-key-mgmt-04.txt> as a BCP

IETF LC ends on 2006-11-06.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-housley-aaa-key-mgmt-04.txt

--------------------------- 
Reviewer: Gonzalo Camarillo

- 'Canonical representation of 4-byte AS numbers '
   <draft-michaelson-4byte-as-representation-01.txt> as an Informational
RFC

IETF LC ends on 2006-11-06.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-michaelson-4byte-as-representa
tion-01.txt

--------------------------- 
Reviewer: Harald Alvestrand

- 'Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) '
   <draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3730bis-03.txt> as a Draft Standard

IETF LC ends on 2006-11-11.  

Note that the document involves a number of references to documents
at a lower level of standardization :RFC 3023 (XML Media Types)
and RFC 3339 (Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps).  

The document includes an appendix containing a list of changes from the
relevant RFC.  While there were several text changes to clarify portions
of the text as a result of implementation experience, there were no
schema changes needed when updating the documents.  The EPP version
specified in the original RFCs and the -bis documents remains the same.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3730bis-03.t
xt

Implementation Report can be accessed at:

http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/RFCs3730-3734_implem.txt

--------------------------- 
Reviewer: Joel Halpern

- 'Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Host Mapping '
   <draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3732bis-03.txt> as a Draft Standard

IETF LC ends on 2006-11-11.  

Note that the document involves a reference to a document
at a lower level of standardization:  RFC 3339 (Date and Time on
the Internet: Timestamps).  

The document includes an appendix containing a list of changes from the
relevant RFC.  While there were several text changes to clarify portions
of the text as a result of implementation experience, there were no
schema changes needed when updating the documents.  The EPP version
specified in the original RFCs and the -bis documents remains the same.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3732bis-03.t
xt

Implementation Report can be accessed at:
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/RFCs3730-3734_implem.txt

--------------------------- 
Reviewer: John Loughney

- 'Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Transport Over TCP '
   <draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3734bis-03.txt> as a Draft Standard

IETF LC ends on 2006-11-11.  

Note that the document involves a reference to a document
at a lower level of standardization: RFC 2246 (The TLS Protocol
Version 1.0).

The document includes an appendix containing a list of changes from the
relevant RFC.  While there were several text changes to clarify portions
of the text as a result of implementation experience, there were no
schema changes needed when updating the documents.  The EPP version
specified in the original RFCs and the -bis documents remains the same.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3734bis-03.t
xt

Implementation Report can be accessed at:

http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/RFCs3730-3734_implem.txt

--------------------------- 
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia

- 'Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Domain Name Mapping '
   <draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3731bis-04.txt> as a Draft Standard

IETF LC ends on 2006-11-11.  

Note that the document involves a reference to a document
at a lower level of standardization:  RFC 3339 (Date and Time on
the Internet: Timestamps).  

The document includes an appendix containing a list of changes from the
relevant RFC.  While there were several text changes to clarify portions
of the text as a result of implementation experience, there were no
schema changes needed when updating the documents.  The EPP version
specified in the original RFCs and the -bis documents remains the same.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3731bis-04.t
xt

Implementation Report can be accessed at:

http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/RFCs3730-3734_implem.txt

--------------------------- 
Reviewer: Pasi Eronen

- 'Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Contact Mapping '
   <draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3733bis-04.txt> as a Draft Standard

IETF LC ends on 2006-11-11.  

Note that the document involves references to documents
at a lower level of standardization: RFC 2822 (Internet Message
Format) and RFC 3339 (Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps)

Each document includes an appendix containing a list of changes from the
relevant RFC.  While there were several text changes to clarify portions
of the text as a result of implementation experience, there were no
schema changes needed when updating the documents.  The EPP version
specified in the original RFCs and the -bis documents remains the same.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3733bis-04.t
xt

Implementation Report can be accessed at:

http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/RFCs3730-3734_implem.txt

--------------------------- 
Reviewer: Robert Sparks

- 'Fragmentation Considered Very Harmful '
   <draft-heffner-frag-harmful-02.txt> as an Informational RFC

IETF LC ends on 2006-11-17.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-heffner-frag-harmful-02.txt

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

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: 
Reviewer: 
Review Date:  
IETF LC Date: 
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary:

Comments:

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

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 16:56:42 -0400

This document is ready for publication as a draft standard.
The implementation report seems quite sufficient to justify advancement.

I have no opinion on the down-ref issue, as I have not tried to 
determine the actual current rules.

nit: I believe the last paragraph of 1.1 (in which "ns1.example1.com 
MUST be treated as an internal host") assumes that example1.com and 
example2.com are both handled by the same repository (since the 
notion of internal / external is described as relative to a 
repository.)  But the text does not say that they are both 
represented in the same repository.

nit: I believe the MAY in line 2 of 2.3 (Status Values) is a 
MUST.  Or a "may".  But not MAY.  It does not give 
permission.  Rather, it is restricting who is able to perform an 
operation.(line 5 uses a proper MAY.)

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hollenbeck-epp-rfc3732bis-03.txt
>
>