Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry-02

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 09:16:13 +0300

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:  draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry-02

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2015-9-9

IETF LC End Date: 2015-9-10

IESG Telechat date: 

Summary: This draft is almost for publication as an Standard Track  RFC.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

The document registers IKEv2-derived Shared Secret Key in section 3.2.4. Why
here and not in draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-11.  I suggest deleting the
registration of IKEv2-derived Shared Secret Key from here. Otherwise
draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-11 should be normative reference since the [RFC TBD]
depends on it and it may cause a delay in publication and creation of the
registry.

Nits/editorial comments:

In sections 3.1.2 and 3.2.2 the policy should be "IETF review" and not "IETF
consensus"  according to section 4.1 in RFC5226

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 17:32:20 -0400

Hi Roni, see replies below,
Al
From: Roni Even [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 2:16 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry-02

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.

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2015-9-9

IESG Telechat date:

Major issues:

Minor issues:

The document registers IKEv2-derived Shared Secret Key in section 3.2.4. Why here and not in draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-11.  I suggest deleting the registration of IKEv2-derived Shared Secret Key from here. Otherwise draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-11 should be normative reference since the [RFC TBD] depends on it and it may cause a delay in publication and creation of the registry.
[ACM] It's here because the IESG review of draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec spawned the question,
"can we quickly create the needed registry for OWAMP?"  As a result of discussion and agreement,
draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec provides all the IANA Considerations for the TWAMP Registries,
and this draft (which draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec is waiting for, not the other way around)
provides all the IANA considerations to create the new OWAMP registries.

Nits/editorial comments:
In sections 3.1.2 and 3.2.2 the policy should be "IETF review" and not "IETF consensus"  according to section 4.1 in RFC5226
[ACM] I see, the terminology has changed:
IETF Review - (Formerly called "IETF Consensus" in
            [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226#ref-IANA-CONSIDERATIONS>]) New values are assigned only through
            RFCs that have been shepherded through the IESG as AD-
            Sponsored or IETF WG Documents [RFC3932<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3932>] [RFC3978<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3978>].

---

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 06:40:16 +0300

Hi Al,

OK,  I understand now.

So I have no comments.

Roni

From: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 12:32 AM
To: Roni Even; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry-02

Al

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2015-9-9

IESG Telechat date: 

 

Major issues:

Minor issues:

[ACM] It's here because the IESG review of draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec spawned the
question,

"can we quickly create the needed registry for OWAMP?"  As a result of
discussion and agreement,

draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec provides all the IANA Considerations for the TWAMP
Registries, 

and this draft (which draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec is waiting for, not the other
way around)

Nits/editorial comments:

            [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226#ref-IANA-CONSIDERATIONS> ]) New values
are assigned only through

            Sponsored or IETF WG Documents [RFC3932
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3932> ] [RFC3978
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3978> ].

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:33:15 -0500

Hi, Roni,

Thank you for the review - it's always helpful ...

Spencer

> 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>.
may receive.
> Review Date:2015–9-9
> IETF LC End Date: 2015–9-10
>
> IESG Telechat date:
>
>
>
> The document registers IKEv2-derived Shared Secret Key in section 3.2.4.
Why here and not in draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-11.  I suggest deleting the
registration of IKEv2-derived Shared Secret Key from here. Otherwise
draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-11 should be normative reference since the [RFC TBD]
depends on it and it may cause a delay in publication and creation of the
registry.
>
> [ACM] It’s here because the IESG review of draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec spawned
the question,
>
> “can we quickly create the needed registry for OWAMP?”  As a result of
Registries,
way around)
> In sections 3.1.2 and 3.2.2 the policy should be “IETF review” and not
“IETF consensus”  according to section 4.1 in RFC5226
>             [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]) New values are assigned only through
>
>             Sponsored or IETF WG Documents [RFC3932] [RFC3978].
>
>
>
>