Last Call Review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis-08
review-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis-08-genart-lc-korhonen-2015-12-21-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 10) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2015-12-28 | |
Requested | 2015-12-15 | |
Authors | Julien Laganier | |
I-D last updated | 2015-12-21 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -08
by Jouni Korhonen
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -09 by Jouni Korhonen (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Tina Tsou (Ting ZOU) (diff) Intdir Early review of -07 by Sheng Jiang (diff) Intdir Early review of -07 by Zhen Cao (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Stefan Winter (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Jouni Korhonen |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 08 (document currently at 10) | |
Result | Ready w/nits | |
Completed | 2015-12-21 |
review-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis-08-genart-lc-korhonen-2015-12-21-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis-08 Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen Review Date:2015–12-21 IETF LC End Date: 2015–12-28 IESG Telechat date: Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a standard track RFC with small nits to be corrected. Major issues: None. Minor issues: * The document seems to imply/assume that a DNS query has multiple question sections with different QTYPEs. At least the exmaples in lines 226 and 278 make me read so. I wonder whether this is actually the intention. If not, reword/edit accordingly to avoid the confusion. This is to avoid known issues when QDCOUNT>1 or have a justification to do so. * Section 5 and the assiciated HIP RR figure mostly mentions public key but not HI anymore. For the clarity I would suggest adding text that the public key is the HI as well. Nits/editorial comments: * IDnits complains on outdated reference: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis-06 but this can be corrected e.g., by the RFC Editor. * Line 97: s/address\(es\)/addresses * Line 162: s/obtain/obtains * Line 163: s/initiate/initiates * The document sometime uses "initiator" instead of "Initiator" e.g., in line 173. Suggest always using "Initiator" when meaning the HIP Initiator. * API is never expanded. * Sentence between lines 204-206 is somewhat hard to parse. Suggest rewording. * Line 201: "HIP node (R)" probably means Responder. Suggest actually stating that.