Last Call Review of draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-03
review-ietf-alto-cost-mode-03-secdir-lc-farrell-2022-05-19-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 05) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2022-05-13 | |
| Requested | 2022-04-29 | |
| Authors | Mohamed Boucadair , Qin Wu | |
| I-D last updated | 2022-05-19 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -02
by Roni Even
(diff)
Artart Last Call review of -02 by Jaime Jimenez (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Stephen Farrell (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Stephen Farrell |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/XEM_dvevwD4grIxm_EgKU3iDI68 | |
| Reviewed revision | 03 (document currently at 05) | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2022-05-19 |
review-ietf-alto-cost-mode-03-secdir-lc-farrell-2022-05-19-00
This document seems ready to me. I did have one question - RFC7285 says that servers MUST support one of the numeric or ordinal cost-modes. It wasn't entirely clear to me whether it's intended that that remain the case, but I assume it is, so that e.g. it'd be invalid to have a server that only supports some new "foo" cost mode. If that's the case, then this draft is fine. If something else was intended then I guess a bit more text on that would be needed.