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 revision | 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 | |
Authors | Viktor Dukhovni , Wes Hardaker | |
I-D last updated | 2015-05-06 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -16
by Dan Romascanu
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -17 by Dan Romascanu (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Dan Romascanu |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-dane-smtp-with-dane by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 16 (document currently at 19) | |
Result | Ready w/nits | |
Completed | 2015-05-06 |
review-ietf-dane-smtp-with-dane-16-genart-lc-romascanu-2015-05-06-00
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.