Last Call Review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc4843-bis-05
review-ietf-hip-rfc4843-bis-05-genart-lc-krishnan-2014-06-11-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-hip-rfc4843-bis |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 08) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2014-06-11 | |
Requested | 2014-05-28 | |
Authors | Julien Laganier , Francis Dupont | |
I-D last updated | 2014-06-11 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -05
by Suresh Krishnan
(diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Susan Hares (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Suresh Krishnan |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4843-bis by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 05 (document currently at 08) | |
Result | Almost ready | |
Completed | 2014-06-11 |
review-ietf-hip-rfc4843-bis-05-genart-lc-krishnan-2014-06-11-00
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewerfor this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html ). Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-hip-rfc4843-bis-06.txt Reviewer: Suresh Krishnan Review Date: 2014/06/24 IESG Telechat date: 2014/06/26 Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a Proposed Standard but I have a comment you might wish to address. * Section 2 The Encode_96 function mentions that the output is obtained by "extracting the middle 96-bit long bitstring" from the argument. This seems to be in conflct with Appendix E of RFC5201bis where the HIT suite 3 recommends truncation of the hash to 96 bits. Shouldn't this just be a truncation function? Thanks Suresh