Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dime-drmp-04
review-ietf-dime-drmp-04-secdir-lc-yu-2016-05-05-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-dime-drmp |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 07) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2016-05-03 | |
| Requested | 2016-03-17 | |
| Authors | Steve Donovan | |
| I-D last updated | 2016-05-05 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -04
by Meral Shirazipour
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -05 by Meral Shirazipour (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Taylor Yu (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Taylor Yu |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-dime-drmp by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
| Reviewed revision | 04 (document currently at 07) | |
| Result | Has nits | |
| Completed | 2016-05-05 |
review-ietf-dime-drmp-04-secdir-lc-yu-2016-05-05-00
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. Summary: Ready with nits The security considerations section of this document seems substantial. I approve of including a treatment of the lack of end-to-end security in the protocol. This is a topic to which authors of other documents should pay more attention. Editorial: Page headers say "DOIC" instead of something like "DRMP"; is this intentional? Section 11.3 title "End-to End-Security Issues" should probably be "End-to-End Security Issues".