Subject: [Gen-art] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 16 August 2007

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:47:57 -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 

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

Please welcome, Ben Campbell, as the newest member of the review team,
with his first assignment below!

Thanks, 
Mary. 
--------------------------- 
Reviewer: Ben Campbell

- 'Extended Secure RTP Profile for RTCP-based Feedback (RTP/SAVPF) '
   <draft-ietf-avt-profile-savpf-11.txt> as a Proposed Standard

IETF LC ends on 2007-08-30. 

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-profile-savpf-11.txt

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=
11002&rfc_flag=0

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

- 'IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option '
   <draft-ietf-ipv6-ra-flags-option-01.txt> as a Proposed Standard

IETF LC ends on 2007-08-30. 

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-ra-flags-option-01.t
xt

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=
16067&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: 
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, 19 Aug 2007 19:38:35 -0400

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft
     IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option
(for background on Gen-ART, please 
seehttp://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Document: draft-ietf-ipv6-ra-flags-option-01.txt
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date:  19-August-2007
IETF LC End Date: 2007-08-31
IESG Telechat date: (if known) 2007-09-06

Summary:
This document is ready for publication as a proposed standard.
I would change the length handling text a bit if I were writing it, 
so I have included that suggestion as part of my comments.
There is a good chance that in this particular case all of my 
comments below are too picky, but they are provided for the 
information of the general area chair.

Comments:
As a general observation, it is usually a bad idea for chairs to be 
authors of documents in their working group.  If we really don't have 
enough active participants in the IPv6 working group to get someone 
else to write this, we have a much larger problem.

The document says that the length of the option is 1.  This is in 
multiples of 8 octets, so there is lots of room.
However, the text explicitly says that the length should be checked 
in case of future expansion.  But it does not specify what to do if 
the length is not 1.
I would recommend that the text explicitly allow for lengths greater 
than 1, and simply indicate that bits past those understood by the 
receiver are too be ignored.  There could probably also be a sentence 
indicating that since bits are to be defined in order, this allows a 
receiver to properly recognize the bits it understands.

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:20:00 -0700

On Aug 20, 2007, at 9:46 AM, ext Brian Haberman wrote:

> Hi Joel,
>      Thanks for the review.  I see no problem with making the  
> suggested change on length handling to clarify behavior.

I am in agreement as well.

Bob

> Regards,
> Brian
> Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> (for background on Gen-ART, please seehttp://www.alvestrand.no/ 
>> ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
>> I would change the length handling text a bit if I were writing  
>> it, so I have included that suggestion as part of my comments.
>> As a general observation, it is usually a bad idea for chairs to  
>> be authors of documents in their working group.  If we really  
>> don't have enough active participants in the IPv6 working group to  
>> get someone else to write this, we have a much larger problem.
>> However, the text explicitly says that the length should be  
>> checked in case of future expansion.  But it does not specify what  
>> to do if the length is not 1.
>> I would recommend that the text explicitly allow for lengths  
>> greater than 1, and simply indicate that bits past those  
>> understood by the receiver are too be ignored.  There could  
>> probably also be a sentence indicating that since bits are to be  
>> defined in order, this allows a receiver to properly recognize the  
>> bits it understands.

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:46:59 -0400

Hi Joel,
      Thanks for the review.  I see no problem with making the suggested 
change on length handling to clarify behavior.

Regards,
Brian

Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> I would change the length handling text a bit if I were writing it, so I 
> have included that suggestion as part of my comments.
> There is a good chance that in this particular case all of my comments 
> below are too picky, but they are provided for the information of the 
> general area chair.
> 
> Comments:
> enough active participants in the IPv6 working group to get someone else 
> to write this, we have a much larger problem.
> 
> However, the text explicitly says that the length should be checked in 
> case of future expansion.  But it does not specify what to do if the 
> length is not 1.