Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dane-smtp-with-dane-16
review-ietf-dane-smtp-with-dane-16-genart-lc-romascanu-2015-05-06-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-dane-smtp-with-dane
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 19)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-05-07
Requested 2015-04-23
Other Reviews Genart Telechat review of -17 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Dan Romascanu
Review review-ietf-dane-smtp-with-dane-16-genart-lc-romascanu-2015-05-06
Posted at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg11626.html
Reviewed rev. 16 (document currently at 19)
Review result Ready with Nits
Draft last updated 2015-05-06
Review completed: 2015-05-06

Review
review-ietf-dane-smtp-with-dane-16-genart-lc-romascanu-2015-05-06






I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at




 




<

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__wiki.tools.ietf.org_area_gen_trac_wiki_GenArtfaq&d=AwICAg&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31OcNXCJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=mb_ePFTrh4SrJtyhoUSSxm3VeVCCfkSyGSgcyusg8UA&s=DcFaQTeDfxbYZdHOC8LSldAdZ87N4zFiXuKx99Z2seU&e=


>.




 




Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.




 




Document: 

draft-ietf-dane-smtp-with-dane-16




Reviewer: Dan Romascanu




Review Date: 5/6/15 




IETF LC End Date: 5/7/15




IESG Telechat date: (if known)




 




Summary:




 




Ready with minor comments.




I liked the operational considerations section and the security consideration section – very useful in putting this work in the context of other similar contributions.





 




Major issues:




 




None.




 




Minor issues:




 




As the document uses heavily the term ‘downgrade’ (downgrade attack, downgrade-resistant) it would be nice to either explain or provide a reference for what it means in the context of this work.





 




Nits/editorial comments:




 




The last paragraph in section 2.2.1, page 15 has a comment marked twice by --. This may be an editorial left-over to be corrected.