Last Call Review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-06
review-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-06-genart-lc-romascanu-2016-01-21-00

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-rfc6253-bis-06

Reviewer: Dan Romascanu

Review Date: 1/7/2016

IETF LC End Date: 12/28/2015

IESG Telechat date:



Summary: On the right track



The document is well structured, but there are a number of issues that must be
fixed before it is approved by the IESG.



Major issues:



1.



The Type number values mentioned in Section 2 (after the certificate types
table) refer to the values in RFC 6253 (that go to 8) and not in the values in
this document.

2.



The IANA Considerations section needs in my opinion to be re-written. RFC 6263
was an Experimental RFC, this document has an Intended Status of Standards
Track, it cannot just refer to the content of the document
 that it is obsoleting.

3.



A new Certificate type registry needs to be defined in my opinion. Older values
in the registry were 0 to 8, this document should not use values of 0 to 4 in
the same registry while some of the values have different
 semantics.



Minor issues:



1.



The front page does not provide the initials of the first name of the authors.
This may seem a nit, but there may be tools that are used with processing the
initials of the authors name.

2.



Inconsistent use of CERT (the parameter in RFC 7401) and Cert (as in Cert
group, Cert count, etc.). Any special reason not to write consistently CERT
every place?

3.



I am missing a section that would remain in the document (unlike Appendix B
which I suspect will be taken out at publication) and that shortly lists the
changes from RFC 6253 and their motivation.



Nits/editorial comments: