Last Call Review of draft-ietf-kitten-cammac-00
review-ietf-kitten-cammac-00-genart-lc-shirazipour-2014-12-12-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-kitten-cammac
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-01-06
Requested 2014-11-28
Other Reviews Genart Telechat review of -00 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -04 by Meral Shirazipour
Opsdir Last Call review of -00 by Qin Wu (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Meral Shirazipour
Review review-ietf-kitten-cammac-00-genart-lc-shirazipour-2014-12-12
Posted at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg10942.html
Reviewed rev. 00 (document currently at 04)
Review result Ready with Nits
Draft last updated 2014-12-12
Review completed: 2014-12-12

Review
review-ietf-kitten-cammac-00-genart-lc-shirazipour-2014-12-12






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


http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq

.





 




Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.




 




Document: draft-ietf-kitten-cammac-00




Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour




Review Date: 2014-11-29




IETF LC End Date:  2014-12-09




IESG Telechat date: NA




 




 




Summary:




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




 




 




Minor issues:




 




Nits/editorial comments:




 




[Page 1], Abstract section, please remove the duplication of the word abstract (first word of first sentence).




 




[Page 1], Abstract, suggestion: the actual motivation should be briefly mentioned in the abstract. (e.g. that AD-KDC-ISSUED is not sufficient in cases where ...).





 




[Page 3], "The svc-verifier element of the CAMMAC", is svc newly introduced in this draft? If so it would be clearer to mention it, e.g. "The new svc-verifier element of the CAMMAC"




 




[Page 3], same sentence as above, should it be "AD-CAMMAC" instead of "CAMMAC" ?




 




[Page 3], "svc-verifier", does svc acronym stand for something? (service and the Key Distribution Center ? ) Both svc and should be spelled out at first use.




 




[Page 6], Section 5, if an Application server does not recognize the AD-CAMMAC container and the latter was not enclosed in the AD-IF-RELEVENT,





should the Application server send an error or ignore ? 







 




 




Best Regards,




Meral




---




Meral Shirazipour




Ericsson




Research




www.ericsson.com