Last Call Review of draft-hardie-privsec-metadata-insertion-05
review-hardie-privsec-metadata-insertion-05-opsdir-lc-bonica-2017-02-01-00
Request | Review of | draft-hardie-privsec-metadata-insertion |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 08) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
Deadline | 2017-02-21 | |
Requested | 2017-01-24 | |
Authors | Ted Hardie | |
I-D last updated | 2017-02-01 | |
Completed reviews |
Opsdir Last Call review of -05
by Ron Bonica
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -06 by Stewart Bryant (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Yoav Nir (diff) Tsvart Last Call review of -05 by Michael Tüxen (diff) Genart Telechat review of -06 by Stewart Bryant (diff) Genart Telechat review of -07 by Stewart Bryant (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Ron Bonica |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-hardie-privsec-metadata-insertion by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 05 (document currently at 08) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2017-02-01 |
review-hardie-privsec-metadata-insertion-05-opsdir-lc-bonica-2017-02-01-00
Folks, I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. Summary: Ready for publication This draft identifies a design strategy in which middle boxes expose data that the end user meant to hide. As would be expected, the draft discourages the above-mentioned strategy. The draft is important. I would vote "YES". Major issues: None Minor issues: - A few grammatical issues. Please take another quick read through the document. Section 1: s/document/documented Nits: - Unused reference. Please run nit-check