Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data-33

Request Review of draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 38)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-08-24
Requested 2015-08-13
Authors Randall Gellens, Brian Rosen, Hannes Tschofenig, Roger Marshall, James Winterbottom
Draft last updated 2015-08-24
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -33 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -34 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -33 by Magnus Nystrom (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Francis Dupont
State Completed
Review review-ietf-ecrit-additional-data-33-genart-lc-dupont-2015-08-24
Reviewed rev. 33 (document currently at 38)
Review result Almost Ready
Review completed: 2015-08-24


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


Document: draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data-34.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20150828
IETF LC End Date: 20150824
IESG Telechat date: 20150903

Summary: Almost Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues:
 This document uses and even redefines RFC 2119 keywords outside the
*formal* wording of RFC 2119: quoting the RFC 2119 (Abstract):
 "These words are often capitalized."
This formally means a keyword in lower case is still a keyword which
must (MUST :-) be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. IMHO this is
for very old IETF documents: any IETF document published less than 20
years ago uses full upper case keywords when they have to be interpreted
so this statement in the RFC 2119 Abstract is more source of confusion
than clarification.
 If it can be accepted I propose to add an exception for this document
saying that RFC 2119 keywords are capitalized.

Nits/editorial comments:
 - Abstract page 1: every emergency call carry -> carries

 - 1 page 4: every emergency call carry -> carries

 - 2 page 6: the place where I suggest to add that RFC 2119 keywords
  are capitalized and in general keywords are case sensitive.

 - 4.1.4 page 13: an example of a "may" and a "should" which are not
  RFC 2119 keywords but only common English.

 - 4.2.1 page 18: neccessarily -> necessarily

 - 4.3.8 page 27: defined . -> defined.

 - 5.2 page 36 and 5.3 page 38:
  I am afraid the provided-by construct in the example is unbalanced
  (i.e., <provided-by -> <provided-by>)

 - 8 page 62, 9 page 65 (twice): as security and privacy considerations
  can be read independently I suggest to replace the 3 "may"s by
  equivalent wordings ("can", "be allowed to", etc). 

 - 10.1.9 page 70: registation -> registration

 - 10.4 pages 72 - 76 (many):
  The IESG <ietf at> -> The IESG <iesg at>

 - 10.6 page 82: ectit at -> ecrit at

 - 11 page 83: benefitted -> benefited

Note I didn't check the schemas (even you had the nice attention to
provide them directly, cf appendix B). I reviewed the 33 version
(so at the exception of spelling errors I gave the 33.txt page numbers)
and verified the 33-34 diff.


Francis.Dupont at