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 revision No specific revision (document currently at 20)
Type IETF 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 , Jérôme Martinez
I-D last updated 2021-08-23 (Latest revision 2021-02-23)
Completed reviews Secdir Early review of -02 by Liang Xia (diff)
Genart Early review of -03 by Matthew A. Miller (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -16 by Liang Xia (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -16 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -17 by Qin Wu (diff)
Comments 
I put the review request into a closed state somehow, so I'm requesting a review to reassign.
Assignment Reviewer Joel M. Halpern
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1 by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/Op92jtMDEPPMqRrM4rZlilo_uLg
Reviewed revision 16 (document currently at 20)
Result Ready
Completed 2020-07-13
review-ietf-cellar-ffv1-16-genart-lc-halpern-2020-07-13-00
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: