Last Call Review of draft-hansen-scram-sha256-02
review-hansen-scram-sha256-02-genart-lc-sparks-2015-04-07-00
| Request | Review of | draft-hansen-scram-sha256 |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 04) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2015-04-24 | |
| Requested | 2015-03-27 | |
| Authors | Tony Hansen | |
| I-D last updated | 2015-04-07 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -02
by Robert Sparks
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -03 by Robert Sparks (diff) Genart Telechat review of -04 by Robert Sparks Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Vincent Roca (diff) Secdir Telechat review of -04 by Vincent Roca Opsdir Last Call review of -02 by Mehmet Ersue (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Robert Sparks |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-hansen-scram-sha256 by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
| Reviewed revision | 02 (document currently at 04) | |
| Result | Ready w/nits | |
| Completed | 2015-04-07 |
review-hansen-scram-sha256-02-genart-lc-sparks-2015-04-07-00
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-hansen-scram-sha256 Reviewer: Robert Sparks Review Date: 2Apr2015 IETF LC End Date: 24Apr2015 IESG Telechat date: (if known) Summary: Ready for publication as Informational, with nits that should be considered. Nits/editorial comments: Nit: It raises flags for me when an Informational document uses "Updates" on a standards track document. I would argue that this does _not_ update 5802. IANA did the things that 5802 requested, and this document is requesting something else that happens to change those things. That makes this more of a "see also" than a "the protocol changed", and I think the Updates should be removed. I don't feel super strongly about the difference in _this particular case_, hence its classification as a Nit. But for consistency, and avoiding the issue of having an Informational update a PS, I hope you choose to remove it. Editorial comment: The URLs in the references section seem superfluous since you've already expanded them in the introduction?