Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ice-trickle-16
review-ietf-ice-trickle-16-secdir-lc-mandelberg-2018-03-08-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-ice-trickle |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 21) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2018-02-22 | |
Requested | 2018-02-08 | |
Authors | Emil Ivov , Eric Rescorla , Justin Uberti , Peter Saint-Andre | |
I-D last updated | 2018-03-08 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -16
by Roni Even
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -16 by David Mandelberg (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -18 by Sarah Banks (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | David Mandelberg |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-ice-trickle by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 16 (document currently at 21) | |
Result | Has nits | |
Completed | 2018-03-08 |
review-ietf-ice-trickle-16-secdir-lc-mandelberg-2018-03-08-00
Hi, 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 primarily for the benefit of the security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. The summary of the review is: ready with nits. (nit) Section 2: What is a "ufrag pair"? Is it short for username fragment pair? I might have just missed it, but I don't see a definition in the referenced terminology. (nit) Section 15: If I understand correctly, the signaling protocol also needs to guarantee that the end-of-candidates indication is not re-ordered with respect to any trickled candidates. Is that correct? Is it worth adding to the requirements? -- Freelance cyber security consultant, software developer, and more https://david.mandelberg.org/