Subject: [Gen-art] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 11 Jan 2007

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 23:34:39 -0600

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 

The standard template is included at the end of the assignments.  

Thanks, 
Mary. 

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

- 'Protocol Independent Multicast MIB '
   <draft-ietf-pim-mib-v2-09.txt> as a Proposed Standard

IETF LC ends on 2007-01-25.  

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pim-mib-v2-09.txt

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=
8944&rfc_flag=0

--------------------------- 
Reviewer: Michael Patton

- 'A Template for Documents Containing a MIB Module '
   <draft-harrington-text-mib-doc-template-02.txt> as a BCP

IETF LC ends on 2007-02-07. 

Note that the document includes a Normative Reference to RFC 2629 which
is Informational. This is a Downward Reference as per RFC 3967. 

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-harrington-text-mib-doc-templa
te-02.txt

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=
14807&rfc_flag=

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

- 'Using HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA-384, and HMAC-SHA-512 With IPsec '
   <draft-kelly-ipsec-ciph-sha2-01.txt> as a Proposed Standard

IETF LC ends on 2007-02-08. 

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kelly-ipsec-ciph-sha2-01.txt

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=
15204&rfc_flag=0

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

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 End Date: 

Summary:

Comments:

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

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 17:43:48 -0500

[David, given that all the comments are nits, and the large number of 
authors, I am not copying the authors.  If you think the comments 
useful, please relay them to the authors.  Thank you.]

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>http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). 

Document: iSCSI Extensions for RDMA Specification
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date:  January 12, 2007

Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard

Comments:

Nit:  The references to "remote iSER Layer" as a participant in 
communication (in the definitions section) is odd.  I've seen 
references to Layer Instances, Layer Entities, and other 
qualifiers.  But It is unusual to see Layer by itself used this 
way.  (Normally, a layer refers to the collection of communicating 
entities in that layer.  Even the definitions in this document define 
it that way.  A layer is neither local nor remote.)  I suspect that 
most of these occurrences would be better as "Remote Peer" according 
to the definitions. (or remote iSER node or more verbosely the iSER 
layer at the remote node, as per later usage.)

Nit: After the first occurrence of "RDMA-Capable Protocol" in the 
abstract, could you just put "(RCaP)"

Nit: I would include all the acronyms referenced in the definitions 
(SN, RCaP, ...) into the Acronym list.

Nit: I may have missed it, but I did not find a definitions (or 
description) of target and initiator before 2.4.  I presume that this 
is well-defined in other RDMA specs.  A paragraph here (or actual 
definitions in section 1) would be helpful.  (Yes, this can be 
understood once one gets to 2.5.  It is a matter of avoiding usage 
before description problems.)

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 18:41:34 -0500

Document: Datamover Architecture for iSCSI (DA)
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date:  january 12, 2007

Summary: This document is ready for publication as an Informational RFC.

Comments:   None