Telechat Review of draft-hansen-scram-sha256-04
review-hansen-scram-sha256-04-genart-telechat-sparks-2015-11-03-00

For completeness in the gen-art archives and so that Jari doesn't have 


to go looking:




(boilerplate elided)

Summary: Ready for publication as a Proposed Standard

On 8/4/15 1:43 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:



(apologies to the genart list who will see this as a duplicate):

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: 04-Aug-2015
IETF LC End Date: 25-Aug-2015
IESG Telechat date: not yet on any telechat

Summary: Ready for publication as a Proposed Standard

The change to PS addresses the concern I expressed in the review below.


miniscule-nit: I still think the extra URI section after the 


references is not needed.




RjS

On 4/2/15 1:41 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:



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?




_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art at ietf.org


https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art