Last Call Review of draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09
review-ietf-homenet-hncp-09-genart-lc-dupont-2015-10-27-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-homenet-hncp |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 10) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2015-10-20 | |
Requested | 2015-10-15 | |
Authors | Markus Stenberg , Steven Barth , Pierre Pfister | |
I-D last updated | 2015-10-27 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -09
by Francis Dupont
(diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -09 by Yoav Nir (diff) Opsdir Telechat review of -09 by Sheng Jiang (diff) Rtgdir Early review of -04 by Thomas H. Clausen (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Francis Dupont |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 09 (document currently at 10) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2015-10-27 |
review-ietf-homenet-hncp-09-genart-lc-dupont-2015-10-27-00
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-homenet-hncp-09.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 20151026 IETF LC End Date: 20151023 IESG Telechat date: 20151119 Summary: Ready Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: - ToC page 3 and D page 38: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments (BTW usually the Acknowledgments section is a section, i.e., not an appendix) - 1 page 3: please introduce the HNCP abbrev - 1 page 4: lease introduce the DNCP abbrev - 5.1 page 9: please add the title of RFC 6092 - 6.2 page 12: Announcements of individual external connections may consist (ambiguous "may": please change it for a synonym or a MAY) - 7.1 page 19: there are new (i.e., other than 4861 or 3315) ways to build not-temporary IPv6 addresses. Perhaps wording should be updated to include them? In doubt please contact Fernando Gont who is (co-)author of most of them. - 9 page 21: (=DTLS) -> (i.e., DTLS) or something more written... - 9 page 22: the Managed PSK TLV must generate -> MUST? - 9 page 22 last paragraph: this should be submitted to the security directorate to check if it is secured (IMHO it is) or if there is a better solution. - 10.1 page 22 and many other places: I deeply dislike the way open fields are displayed in your ASCII art. - 10.2.1.1 page 25: I have many concerns about "DNS Zone": * first it should be a DNS domain (note the term zone has a specific meaning for DNS) * it should be not compressed * it should be terminated by . (coded as an empty label). For the last 2 points 10.6 page 29 has them so a reference is enough. - 10.5 pages 28 and 29: 3 should -> SHOULD? - 12.1 page 33: (for your info) there is a secure DHCPv6 I-D under IESG review which should bring more security to DHCP (at least far better than current "authentication" which is both poor as a security point of view and deployed nowhere... Regards Francis.Dupont at fdupont.fr