IETF conflict review for draft-moriarty-caris2
conflict-review-moriarty-caris2-00

A few areas of recommended clarification and editorial nits:

** Section 1.  Per “… consideration of research  opportunities to improve protocols and determine if there are ways to detect attacks using protocol design ideas that could later influence protocol development in the IETF.”, I had trouble parsing the idea of “detecting attacks” using “protocol design ideas” – is that the same as improve the ability to detect attacks by designing protocols in a particular way?

** Section 3.  Per “intrinsic protection capabilities”, I wasn’t sure what “intrinsic” meant here.

** Section 3.  TCPcrypt seems quite uneven with regard to the relative adoptions of TLS or QUIC?

** Section 4.2.  Per “MUD shifts sets”, is this a typo?  Not sure what is “shift”-ing?

** Section 4.3. Per “volume of strong signals …”, I wasn’t sure what that was

** Section 4.4.  Per “If you can devise methods … a stronger results is likely”, not clear what that “strong result" is.

** Section 4.4.  Per “This also precludes the need for additional pro-privacy work to defeat measurement objectives”, unclear what “pro-privacy” is and whose “measurement objectives” need to be “defeated”?

** Section 4.4.1. Per “This is an early idea, the lead contact if interested to help develop this further is Dave Ponka”, will this and similar contacts in Section 4.4.* age well?  If this was intentional (and aging isn’t a concern) should more explicit contact information be provided?

** Section 4.5.  Per “This is likely to be raised in SAAG,  hopefully with proposed new definitions to demonstrate the issue and evolution of terms over time”, recommend against explicit committing to an action in the IETF.

Editorial Nits

** Section 3. Duplicate text.  “the lack of information security professionals to fill the job gap.”

** Section 4.  Typo. s/brainstormon/brainstorm/g

** Section 4.  Typo. s/ heightenedneed/heightened need/

** Section 4.2.  Consider providing citations for PAVA and PASC.

** Section 4.2.  Per “… a proposal … already b[eing] develop[ed], namely privacy for rendezvous service”, is there a pointer?

** Section 4.3. Typo. s/betwen/between/

** Section 4.3.  Per “Fear initially provides activity …”, this was metaphorical and hard to follow

** Section 4.4.1.  Typo. s/researhers/researchers/