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