Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-isms-transport-security-model-12

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:05:43 -0500

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: draft-ietf-isms-transport-security-model-12
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2009-04-10
IETF LC End Date:  2009-04-15
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary:

This draft is ready for publication as a proposed standard. I have a  
few nit comments, attention to which might improve the document.

Major issues:

None

Minor issues:

None

Nits/editorial comments:

--Section 2.3.1, second paragraph

It's not clear to me from context if the "*" is a placeholder or a  
footnote reference.

--Section 2.3.2

Can you provide a reference for the "User-based Security Model"?

-- Section 4.2, first two paragraphs

I'm not sure why the above two paragraphs are numbered--they don't  
seem to represent an ordered sequence.

-- section 9, SMI assignment:

Can you give a URL to the mib-2 registry?

-- Appendix A, multiple editor notes concerning port for SNMP over SSH.

I gather this is port is not already assigned, nor is it assigned by  
this document. Can you include a reference to where it is being  
assigned?

-- Appendices C and D:

Are these to be removed?

---

From: "Tom.Petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:29:48 +0200

I am surprised not to have seen more formal reviews of the quartet for isms I-Ds
whose Last Call has just finished, updating as they do a Standard, while at the
same time introducing a Transport subsystem and model, and also introducing a
new (to snmp) way of providing Security.

I do not know what or how these reviews are triggered but I would have expected
a good deal more than this one and the one that appeared as I was drafting this
response, a round dozen even.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "General Area Review Team"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 10:05 PM
Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-isms-transport-security-model-12

<snip>

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:29:55 -0500

> response, a round dozen even.

Gen-art reviews are assigned to a team of volunteers (i.e. the general  
area review team.) I'm not sure about the assignment criteria, but I  
_think_ we try to catch most, if not every, draft being IETF last  
called for publication.

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

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 10:56:17 -0500

Yes, every document that goes through IETF-LC is assigned one gen-art
reviewer to review the document, but the gen-art review process isn't
really a formal part of the IETF document process - it happens in
parallel with IETF-LC and the reviews are done on behalf of the General
Area director.  It would not be possible for us to cover all the docs
with more than one reviewer - the team is quite small.  The reality
(from my experience) seems to be that the only reviews you can count on
during IETF-LC are those from gen-art, sec-dir (they follow a similar
model as I understand it) and other areas as applicable (e.g., APP, OPS,
etc.). Although some of the latter reviews often happen earlier in the
process.  Each of the reviews from the Gen-ART team are prefaced with a
link to a Gen-ART FAQ:
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html

Regards,
Mary Barnes
Gen-ART secretary

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Ben Campbell
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 9:30 AM
To: Tom.Petch
Cc: General Area Review Team; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review
ofdraft-ietf-isms-transport-security-model-12

On Apr 16, 2009, at 2:29 AM, Tom.Petch wrote:

> I am surprised not to have seen more formal reviews of the quartet for

> isms I-Ds whose Last Call has just finished, updating as they do a 
> Standard, while at the same time introducing a Transport subsystem and

> model, and also introducing a new (to snmp) way of providing Security.
>
> I do not know what or how these reviews are triggered but I would have

> expected a good deal more than this one and the one that appeared as I

> was drafting this response, a round dozen even.

Gen-art reviews are assigned to a team of volunteers (i.e. the general
area review team.) I'm not sure about the assignment criteria, but I
_think_ we try to catch most, if not every, draft being IETF last called
for publication.

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:07:59 -0500

And, just to point out the most interesting text on the page that Mary
referenced:

Q: How can I join the Gen-ART review team?

A: Interested volunteers should contact the General Area director, listed on
the membership page.

:-)

Thanks,

Spencer