Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-15
review-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-15-genart-lc-housley-2019-01-03-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility |
|---|---|---|
| Requested rev. | no specific revision (document currently at 17) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2019-01-16 | |
| Requested | 2019-01-02 | |
| Draft last updated | 2019-01-03 | |
| Completed reviews |
Intdir Early review of -14 by Brian Haberman
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -17 by Daniel Migault Opsdir Last Call review of -15 by Éric Vyncke (diff) Genart Last Call review of -15 by Russ Housley (diff) Tsvart Last Call review of -15 by Magnus Westerlund (diff) Rtgdir Telechat review of -15 by Jonathan Hardwick (diff) Secdir Telechat review of -16 by Daniel Migault (diff) Genart Telechat review of -16 by Russ Housley (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Russ Housley |
| State | Completed | |
| Review | review-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-15-genart-lc-housley-2019-01-03 | |
| Reviewed rev. | 15 (document currently at 17) | |
| Review result | Almost Ready | |
| Review completed: | 2019-01-03 |
Review
review-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-15-genart-lc-housley-2019-01-03
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 <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-15 Reviewer: Russ Housley Review Date: 2019-01-03 IETF LC End Date: 2019-01-16 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Almost Ready Major Concerns: None. Minor Concerns: Section 2: Please update the first paragraph to reference RFC 8174 in addition to RFC 2119, as follows: The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. Nits: Section 1: s/It should be noted that in/In/ Section 1 uses one style for listing two properties, and then Section 3 uses another style for listing four types of IP address. Please pick one style and use it in both places. Section 4.1: s/secsc(/setsc(/ -- in a comment Questions: Should getsc() also be described in Section 6? Should anything be added to the Security Considerations about CGA?