Last Call Review of draft-ietf-anima-brski-ae-06
review-ietf-anima-brski-ae-06-secdir-lc-leiba-2023-11-04-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-anima-brski-ae-05 |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | 05 (document currently at 13) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2023-09-08 | |
| Requested | 2023-08-07 | |
| Requested by | Toerless Eckert | |
| Authors | David von Oheimb , Steffen Fries , Hendrik Brockhaus | |
| I-D last updated | 2023-11-04 | |
| Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -06
by Barry Leiba
(diff)
Yangdoctors Last Call review of -05 by Reshad Rahman (diff) Genart Last Call review of -11 by Meral Shirazipour (diff) Secdir Early review of -03 by Barry Leiba (diff) |
|
| Comments |
This request is to re-visit and update the results of prior early reviews. The authors have confirmed that they closed all early review issues. This request is done in preparation to finish WGLC and to help move the document through AD/IETF/IESG review easier. If possible, please assign SECdir review to Barry Leiba, who has done the -03 early review. If possible, please assign YANGDOCTORS review to Reshad Rahman, who has done the -03 review. Note that especially YANGDOCTORS review should be very quick, because the YANG modules where moved out to a merged draft (rfc8366bis), because there was no other way to define the single extended YANG model across different drafts. |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Barry Leiba |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-anima-brski-ae by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/TtyxrCQo6oxvqp5H4EvPT3En5V4 | |
| Reviewed revision | 06 (document currently at 13) | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2023-11-04 |
review-ietf-anima-brski-ae-06-secdir-lc-leiba-2023-11-04-00
First: My apologies for the long delay in getting this follow-up review done! Second: Thanks for all the work on this document. It's much improved from the -03 version and addresses all my concerns well. Just one small comment in Section 5.1: When using CMP, adherence to the LCMPP [I-D.ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile] is mandatory. In particular, the following specific requirements apply (cf. Figure 2). Should “mandatory” be the BCP 14 “REQUIRED” ? Your choice, as it can stand the way it is, but I have a minor preference for the BCP 14 version. And in Section 8, “Barry Lea” is supposed to be me, I think: “Barry Leiba”. :-)