Last Call Review of draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1-16
review-ietf-cellar-ffv1-16-genart-lc-halpern-2020-07-13-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 17)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2020-07-16
Requested 2020-07-09
Requested by Jean Mahoney
Authors Michael Niedermayer, Dave Rice, Jerome Martinez
Draft last updated 2020-07-13
Completed reviews Secdir Early review of -02 by Liang Xia (diff)
Genart Early review of -03 by Matthew Miller (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -16 by Liang Xia (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -16 by Joel Halpern (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -17 by Qin Wu
Comments
I put the review request into a closed state somehow, so I'm requesting a review to reassign.
Assignment Reviewer Joel Halpern
State Completed
Review review-ietf-cellar-ffv1-16-genart-lc-halpern-2020-07-13
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/Op92jtMDEPPMqRrM4rZlilo_uLg
Reviewed rev. 16 (document currently at 17)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2020-07-13

Review
review-ietf-cellar-ffv1-16-genart-lc-halpern-2020-07-13

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

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1-16
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2020-07-13
IETF LC End Date: 2020-07-16
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: This document appears to be ready for publication as an Informational RFC.

*I would have raised question about the intended status, but it appears that this is an established IETF convention and I see no reason to argue.)

Major issues:

Minor issues:
    Section 3.4 (Context) introduces the notation Q_{#}[ subscript }.  As that is the first reference to Q_{#}, it is rather confusing to the reader.  I grant that the term is defined in the next section (3.5).  Couldn't they be reversed?

    Section 3.8.1.1 refers to C(i), C_{i}, and C_i.  Are these all the same thing.

    Section 3.8.1.2 refers to get-rac (which is treated as a function in the pseudo-code) as being the process described in section 3.8.1.1.  The text in 3.8.1.1 does not call out any of its computed values as an explicit result or return.  While I would guess that the intention is to use the byte stream (B()), the text does not actually say that.  If that is the intention, could the last line of 3.8.1.1 be "get_rac() returns sequential bytes from the Byte Stream (B()) as computed by the computation described in section 3.8.1.1"?

Nits/editorial comments: