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

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