Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-rserpool-threats-09

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 14:22:52 -0500

Here is the latest draft threats-12.  The id-nits still gives me a
warning (but not an error) about the first ASAP reference but I can't
see anything wrong with it.  I'll work on it again tomorrow.

Let me know if you have further comments.

-- Maureen
Maureen Stillman
Nokia Services and Software
Mobile: (607)229-3358

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Ben Campbell [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 11:55 AM
To: Stillman Maureen (Nokia-S&S/MtView)
Cc: [email-masked]; Sengodan Senthil (NSN - US/Irving);
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; Gopal Ram (NSN - US/San
Diego); [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-rserpool-threats-09

On Apr 29, 2008, at 9:24 AM, <[email-masked]>
<[email-masked]  > wrote:

> One additional comment:  The sec-dir reviewer said that he thought a 
> provision for authentication MUST be present and a provision for data 
> confidentiality service SHOULD be present.
> I went with his recommendation on the MUST, SHOULD text.
>
> Hope that is OK with you.
>

Yes, that works for me.

Thanks!

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

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 16:23:40 -0500

Hi Maureen,

This version (which as far as I can tell has not yet been submitted)  
addresses all of my substantive comments.

It does, however introduce some new typos and other purely editorial  
issues. I would now consider it "ready with nits" from a gen-art  
review perspective.

Section 1.0:

The last paragraph in the section now seems redundant given the new  
paragraph that precedes it. (Or maybe this paragraph should move to  
before the preceding one.)

Section 2.2.3:

typo on "athenticaiton"

Section 2.5.3:

typo on "authenticaiton"

Section 2.8.3:

second sentence is hard to follow, suggest something to the effect of  
"The replay attack prevention mechanism in TLS meets this  
requirement."  Also,  typo on "prevetion"

Section 2.13.3:

I suggest repeating the reference to ASAP here. (Maybe with a section  
number if appropriate)

Section 2.14.3:

I suggest repeating the reference to ENRP here. (Maybe with a section  
number if appropriate)

Thanks!

Ben.

On May 1, 2008, at 2:22 PM, <[email-masked]> <[email-masked] 
 > wrote:

> <draft-ietf-rserpool-threats-12.txt>

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 08:50:53 -0500

Ben,

I have attached the updated threats-12 with the changes as noted below.
I also screened the i-d with spell checker and nits checker.

I will submit this latest version of threats-12 to the i-d publisher. 

Thank you for your comments and the resulting improvements to the
document.

-- Maureen
Maureen Stillman

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Ben Campbell [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 5:24 PM
To: Stillman Maureen (Nokia-S&S/MtView)
Cc: [email-masked]; Sengodan Senthil (NSN - US/Irving);

Hi Maureen,

It does, however introduce some new typos and other purely editorial
issues. I would now consider it "ready with nits" from a gen-art review
perspective.

Section 1.0:

*** OK, moved.

Section 2.2.3:

typo on "athenticaiton"

*** Fixed and ran spell check.

Section 2.5.3:

typo on "authenticaiton"

*** Fixed.

Section 2.8.3:

second sentence is hard to follow, suggest something to the effect of
"The replay attack prevention mechanism in TLS meets this requirement."
Also,  typo on "prevetion"

*** Yes, much better wording. Fixed.

Section 2.13.3:

*** OK.

Section 2.14.3:

*** OK.

Thanks!

Ben.

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 09:14:23 -0500

Thanks Maureen. The version you attached addresses all of my comments,  
and in my opinion is ready for publication as an informational RFC.

Thanks!

Ben.

On May 6, 2008, at 8:50 AM, <[email-masked]> wrote:

> review