Subject: Re: [appsdir] [apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-cdni-problem-statement-04

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:08:10 -0700

Hi Vijay,
At 08:44 16-04-2012, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:
>Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational.
>
>Major Issues: 1
>Minor Issues: 5

The major issue is about expanding the security considerations.  Did 
you list this as major because the AppsDir template mentions "list 
any major issues such as security concerns"?

Best regards,
-sm

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 12:35:37 -0500

On 04/16/2012 11:08 AM, SM wrote:
> The major issue is about expanding the security considerations. Did you
> list this as major because the AppsDir template mentions "list any major
> issues such as security concerns"?

SM: No.  I tagged that as major since I thought that the Security
Considerations section was a bit sparse and breaking the need for
authentication and confidentiality across the four interfaces may
be beneficial.

I am fine if you want to include this as part of the Minor
comments, just as long as the authors are aware of the comment
and decide to do *something* with it. (That is, either reject it
as out of scope, incorporate it, or change it and then
incorporate it, etc.).

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [email-masked]
Web:   http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:18:48 -0700

Hi Vijay,
>authentication and confidentiality across the four interfaces may

Ok.

>as out of scope, incorporate it, or change it and then

If I recall correctly, I have used the "do something" approach in one 
of my AppsDir reviews.  I cannot tell you or any other reviewer to 
upgrade or downgrade an issue.  I might ask a reviewer why an issue 
was categorized as such if it is not clear in the review.  The 
correct protocol would be for me to inform the Apps ADs and leave it 
to them to determine whether a clarification is needed.

Let's assume that I am unfamiliar with the IETF.  You tell me:

  "This draft is ready for publication as an Informational."

I then see major and minor issues listed.  It's not clear to me 
whether the draft can be published "as-is" or not.  It may also not 
be clear to the Apps ADs.  My message is a "think about it".

Best regards,
-sm

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 13:52:03 -0500

On 04/16/2012 01:18 PM, SM wrote:
> I then see major and minor issues listed. It's not clear to me whether
> the draft can be published "as-is" or not. It may also not be clear to
> the Apps ADs. My message is a "think about it".

SM: Ah, I see the disconnect.  It is my fault --- sorry.

What happened is that I had originally put the security considerations
comment in the Minor category.  But before submitting the review I
reconsidered it and decided to move it to the Major category.  However,
I forgot to update the Summary description.

I can re-issue a new review with the error corrected.  If you have
any other solution that is more expedient, I am willing to do that
as well.

Again, apologies for the slip-up.  Let me know what you prefer.

Thanks,

- vijay

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 12:01:26 -0700

Hi Vijay,
>I forgot to update the Summary description.

I do that sometimes. :-)

>any other solution that is more expedient, I am willing to do that

That's not needed.  I used the draft more as an example than to 
comment on the review.

Best regards,
-sm