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 | |
| Draft 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 | |
| Review |
review-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement-09-secdir-lc-kent-2016-02-04
|
|
| 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