On 3/29/16 4:31 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hi Roni, and gen-art (other cc's dropped)
So, a gen-art question to the gen-art reviewers :-)
What is the criterion for major issue?
The judgement of the reviewer.
You might find more of what you're looking for at
<https://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki>
but you will not find any "normalization" and I don't think any
should be sought.
Most of the genart reviewers are aware of the discuss criteria, and (due
to also being active document editors themselves) the fashion for what's
important to to a given IESG.
That's about as normalized as I think it's appropriate to get.
I'd not have thought that the issues below (which do deserve
a response) would be such a big deal. I do get that various
collections of IETFers will disagree about such, but I'd hope
that gen-art would/could normalise it's opinion, and if this
is the result, I'm surprised.
Thanks,
S.
On 29/03/16 22:00, Roni Even 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-ietf-tls-chacha20-poly1305-04
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2016-3-28
IETF LC End Date: 2016-4-9
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standard track
RFC.
Major issues:
I am wondering why this is a standard track document and not informational
since the registration requirements are specification required. (RFC5246)
I am also wondering why this document updates RFC5246 and RFC6347
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
