Last Call Review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-09
review-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-09-genart-lc-dupont-2015-12-25-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 11) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2015-12-28 | |
Requested | 2015-12-15 | |
Authors | Julien Laganier , Lars Eggert | |
I-D last updated | 2015-12-25 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -09
by Francis Dupont
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -10 by Francis Dupont (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -09 by Takeshi Takahashi (diff) Secdir Telechat review of -10 by Takeshi Takahashi (diff) Intdir Early review of -09 by Jouni Korhonen (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -09 by Qin Wu (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Francis Dupont |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 09 (document currently at 11) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2015-12-25 |
review-ietf-hip-rfc5203-bis-09-genart-lc-dupont-2015-12-25-00
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-hip-rfc5203-bis-09.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 20151218 IETF LC End Date: 20151228 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: - 2 page 3: (comment!) I looked at if the re-registration is a refresh or a renew (I worked too long on DHCP these times :-): it is soft state so I agree the term refresh is the right one. - 3.3 page 4: the short description of what is "valid and accepted" for a certificate is very loose. I don't know if it will be enough for the security directorate... wait and see? - 4.[2-5] pages 6 to 9: the section titles should be at the beginning of the page, not at the end. Note the formatting will be fixed by the RFC Editor anyway. - 4.[2-5] pages 7 to 10: there is no details about the padding, e.g., the padding is for a length which is a multiple of 8 bytes. IMHO you should add a reference to RFC 7401 section 5.2 "HIP Parameters" in section 4 so someone who wants a response to this question (or why types are even) knows where to go. Regards (and Merry Christmas) Francis.Dupont at fdupont.fr