Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipsec-ha-

Request Review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-ipsec-ha
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2010-06-24
Requested 2010-06-10
Authors Yoav Nir
Draft last updated 2010-06-20
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -?? by Jürgen Schönwälder
Assignment Reviewer Jürgen Schönwälder 
State Completed Snapshot
Review review-ietf-ipsecme-ipsec-ha-secdir-lc-schoenwaelder-2010-06-20
Review completed: 2010-06-20



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 document (intended status informational) contains a problem
statement for implementing IKE/IPsec on clusters. The security
considerations section seems adequate and I have no other technical

Editorial nits:

- p4: The text says:

  "High Availability" is a condition of a system [...]

  Would 'property' not be a better term here instead of 'condition'?

- p4: s/depends on application/depends on the application/

- p4: The text says:

  "Fault Tolerance" is a condition [...]

  Would 'property' not be a better term here instead of 'condition'?

- p4: s/the the/the/

- p4: s/where a one/where one/

- p4: s/hapens/happens/

- p7: s/issue, is/issue is/

- p8: s/doomed. the/doomed. The/

- p10: s/solution, is/solution is/

- Some RFC references use the RFC number as in [RFC4301] while others
  use a label such as [REDIRECT]. I suggest to pick one style.


Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <

secdir mailing list
secdir at