Subject: [Gen-art] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 2016-02-11

From: "A. Jean Mahoney" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 16:11:59 -0600

Hi all,

The following reviewers have assignments:

Reviewer          LC end      Draft
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Elwyn Davies      2016-03-07  draft-wallace-est-alt-challenge-04

Fernando Gont     2016-02-22  draft-ietf-siprec-metadata-20

Francis Dupont    2016-02-24  draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-12

Joel Halpern      2016-03-09  draft-martin-urn-globus-02

Jouni Korhonen    2016-03-09  draft-bao-v6ops-rfc6145bis-05

Suresh Krishnan   2016-02-22  draft-ietf-dane-openpgpkey-07 *

* 2nd LC

I have made the assignments in the review tool:
http://art.tools.ietf.org/tools/art/genart/

And the assignments are captured in the spreadsheets:
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/dav/genart/gen-art.html
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/dav/genart/gen-art-by-reviewer.html

The updated template is included below.

Thanks,

Jean

-------------------------------------------------------------------

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:
Reviewer:
Review Date:
IETF LC End Date:
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary:

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 19:26:05 -0500

Document: draft-martin-urn-globus-02
     A URN Namespace for Globus
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: 11-Feb-2016
IETF LC End Date: 9-March-2016
IESG Telechat date: 17-March-2016

Summary: This document is nearly ready for publication as an 
informational RFC.

This reviewer assumes that the appropriate message has been or will be 
sent to [email-masked].

Major issues:
     As per the pointer in this document to RFC 3406 section 4.3, this 
document is required to have a Namespace Considerations section which 
"outlines the perceived need for a new namespace (i.e., where existing 
namespaces fall short of the proposer's requirements)."  While there is 
a section called Namespace Considerations, what it lists is the 
envisioned usages, not the reasons existing name spaces are insufficient.

Minor issues: N/A

Nits/editorial comments: N/A