Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-08

Request Review of draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-02-09
Requested 2015-01-28
Authors Kostas Pentikousis, Emma Zhang, Yang Cui
Draft last updated 2015-02-13
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -08 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -09 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Hannes Tschofenig (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -09 by Hannes Tschofenig (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Fred Baker (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Meral Shirazipour
State Completed
Review review-ietf-ippm-ipsec-08-genart-lc-shirazipour-2015-02-13
Reviewed rev. 08 (document currently at 11)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2015-02-13


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <>.


Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.


Document: draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-08

Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour

Review Date: 2015-02-07

IETF LC End Date: 2015-02-09

IESG Telechat date: NA




Summary: This draft is ready to be published as a Standards Track RFC, but I have some small comments.


Nits/editorial comments:

-[Page 4], Section 1, last two paragraphs: Although the draft always refers to O/TWAMP, this sections says :

"This document specifies a method for enabling network measurements between a TWAMP client and a TWAMP server "

The reason the O/ was omitted is explained in Section 3.  A sentence should be added in section 1 at least mentioning that as described in Section 3 this document is valid mostly for TWAMP.



-[general]: Suggestion to spell out all acronyms at first use, even in abstract.

e.g.: O/TWAMP, IKE, SA, SeGW, eNB( By SeGW do we mean serving gateway? or security GW?), AH, ESP, IV etc...



Best Regards,



Meral Shirazipour