Last Call Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-new-01
review-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-new-01-genart-lc-romascanu-2016-01-21-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-new |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 05) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2016-01-18 | |
Requested | 2016-01-04 | |
Authors | Johannes Merkle , Manfred Lochter | |
I-D last updated | 2016-01-21 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -01
by Dan Romascanu
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -04 by Dan Romascanu (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -01 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -01 by Will (Shucheng) LIU (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Dan Romascanu |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-new by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 01 (document currently at 05) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2016-01-21 |
review-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-new-01-genart-lc-romascanu-2016-01-21-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-new-02.txt Reviewer: Dan Romascanu Review Date: 1/18/16 IETF LC End Date: 1/18/16 IESG Telechat date: (if known): Summary: Ready. This document is an update that fixes a problem with RFC 7360 where MODULE-IDENTITY was defined as { snmpModules 235 } rather than { mib-2 235 } as advised by the MIB Doctors and recommended by IANA. The rest of the content is identical with RFC 7360. Major issues: There is a process issue that the IESG, IANA and the RFC Editor should check (maybe they already did it) in order to avoid such situations in the future. Is IANA involved in AUTH 48 last review of the document? If they are not, maybe they should be. In this case the MIB Doctors recommendation was implemented by IANA in the registry, but the content of the document was not fixed, and nobody at AUTH 48 discovered the problem. Minor issues: Nits/editorial comments: