Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-httpauth-mutual-10

Request Review of draft-ietf-httpauth-mutual
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2016-10-25
Requested 2016-10-13
Authors Yutaka Oiwa , Hajime Watanabe , Hiromitsu Takagi , Kaoru Maeda , Tatsuya Hayashi , Yuichi Ioku
I-D last updated 2016-10-25
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -10 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Meral Shirazipour
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-httpauth-mutual by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 10 (document currently at 11)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2016-10-25

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

Document: draft-ietf-httpauth-mutual-10

Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour

Review Date:             2016-10-25

IETF LC End Date:     2016-10-25

IESG Telechat date: 2016-11-03


This draft is ready to be published as Experimental RFC, but I have some

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

-General: the introduction should clarify the downside or extra complexity with
the proposed method (does the client need to be modified? what was the reason
the web did not opt for this method at first place? are there cases where this
 method cannot be applied?

-[Page 4], "are a one of"----->"are one of"

-[Page 46], Section 18, not sure if it should be left in the RFC or removed?
Please check with chair or Responsible AD.

Best Regards,



Meral Shirazipour

Ericsson Research