Telechat Review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc7321bis-05

Request Review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc7321bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-03-14
Requested 2017-02-16
Authors Paul Wouters, Daniel Migault, John Preuß Mattsson, Yoav Nir, Tero Kivinen
Draft last updated 2017-03-16
Completed reviews Secdir Telechat review of -05 by Christian Huitema (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -05 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -05 by Fred Baker (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Meral Shirazipour 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-ipsecme-rfc7321bis-05-genart-telechat-shirazipour-2017-03-16
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 06)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2017-03-16


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at <>.

Document: draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc7321bis-05
Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour
Review Date: 2017-03-14
IETF LC End Date: 2017-03-15
IESG Telechat date: 2017-03-16

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

Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
-[Page 4], "downgraded from MUST to MUST-". MUST- is defined later in the document. Perhaps a reference in the text should point to that section on p.5.
-[Page 7], "were not been mentioned"---->"have not been mentioned"
-[Page 7], "this document clarify"---->"this document clarifies"
-[Page 11], "that revisions of that"---->"that revisions of this"

-general, some acronyms are not spelled out...VPN, MTU..
-Tables P.5,6,8,9,10. Giving them a caption would make the document clearer.

Best Regards,
Meral Shirazipour
Ericsson Research