Last Call Review of draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement-09
review-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement-09-secdir-lc-kent-2016-02-04-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 11) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2016-02-10 | |
Requested | 2016-01-28 | |
Authors | Alia Atlas , Thomas Nadeau , David Ward | |
I-D last updated | 2016-02-04 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Early review of -04
by Russ Housley
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -09 by Russ Housley (diff) Rtgdir Early review of -06 by Dr. Nabil N. Bitar (diff) Secdir Early review of -04 by Stephen Kent (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -09 by Stephen Kent (diff) Opsdir Early review of -06 by Sarah Banks (diff) Rtgdir Early review of -04 by Eric Gray (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Stephen Kent |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 09 (document currently at 11) | |
Result | Has nits | |
Completed | 2016-02-04 |
review-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement-09-secdir-lc-kent-2016-02-04-00
SECDIR early review of draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement-09 I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving security requirements and considerations in IETF drafts. Comments not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. This is a relatively short document describing the problem being addressed by the I2RS WG, and establishing some requirements for solutions. I reviewed the -04 version of this document in December 2014. This version is slightly longer and is improved. In my previous review I noted a coupe of typos that have been fixed in this version. I also suggested that the Security Considerations section be revised. Although this section is still only one paragraph, the authors have removed the odd language I cited and have provided a pointer to the I2RS arch document. Thus the section has been approved. I have a few suggested edits: The penultimate paragraph on page 2 contains a sentence that runs on for over 8 lines! Please break this into 2-3 sentences. colocated within -> co-located within re-organize the document so that Figure 1 fits on a single page must select the suitable protocol(s) -> must select suitable protocol(s) between the I2RS Clients and I2RS Agent -> between I2RS Clients and I2RS Agents must identify or define is a set -> must identify or define a set the last paragraph on page 5 flips between data model (singular) and data models (plural). Make this consistent. The example for recursion in Section 3 (paragraph 1 is confusing, at least to me). may also need to be -> also may need to be