Subject: [Gen-art] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 2015-01-02

From: "A. Jean Mahoney" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2015 12:54:43 -0600

Hi all,

The following reviewers have assignments:

Reviewer          LC end       Draft
---------------------------------------------------------------------

David Black       2015-01-14   draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression-10

Elwyn Davies      2015-01-14   draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-16

Francis Dupont    2015-01-17   draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-16

Joel Halpern      2015-01-14   draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs-03

Martin Thomson    2015-01-14   draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-use-cases-03

Meral Shirazipour 2015-01-14   draft-ietf-json-i-json-05

I have made the assignments in the review tool:
http://art.tools.ietf.org/tools/art/genart/

And the assignments are captured in the spreadsheets:
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/dav/genart/gen-art.html
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/dav/genart/gen-art-by-reviewer.html

The standard template is included below.

Thanks,

Jean

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

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

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:

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2015 15:46:21 -0500

Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs-03
Management of Networks with Constrained Devices: Problem Statement and
                               Requirements
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: 2-January-2014
IETF LC End Date: 14-January-2014
IESG Telechat date: N/A

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

Major issues: N/A

Minor issues: N/A

Nits/editorial comments:
     A loss rate of "10^-0" might be better written as "1".  And sounds 
like a failed link rather than a loss rate, even if the cause is 
interference.  (last paragraph of section 1.3)

     Section 3 states that requirements are uniquely identified by three 
digit numbers.  In fact, they are identified by a major section number 
and a three digit minor requirement ID number. (So there is a 1.001 and 
a 2.001).  So the description of the requirements template in the start 
of section 3 should be tuned to match what is being done.

---

From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2015 21:47:20 +0000

Hi Joel,

thank you for your kind review. 

I agree with your comments and will consider them for the update.

Cheers, 
Mehmet 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 9:46 PM
> To: A. Jean Mahoney; General Area Review Team; draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-
> [email-masked]
> Subject: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs-03
>