Last Call Review of draft-ietf-kitten-rfc6112bis-02
review-ietf-kitten-rfc6112bis-02-genart-lc-sparks-2016-10-21-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-kitten-rfc6112bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 03)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2016-11-02
Requested 2016-10-20
Other Reviews Genart Telechat review of -03 by Robert Sparks
Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Carl Wallace (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -03 by Tim Wicinski
Review State Completed
Reviewer Robert Sparks
Review review-ietf-kitten-rfc6112bis-02-genart-lc-sparks-2016-10-21
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/fxF4QUJIjuUqvl3XRN6z1bEowfk
Reviewed rev. 02 (document currently at 03)
Review result Ready with Nits
Draft last updated 2016-10-21
Review completed: 2016-10-21

Review
review-ietf-kitten-rfc6112bis-02-genart-lc-sparks-2016-10-21

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 treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

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

Document: draft-ietf-kitten-rfc6112bis-02
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 21 Oct 2016
IETF LC End Date: 2 Nov 2016
IESG Telechat date: Not yet scheduled on a telechat

Summary: Ready with nits

Nits/editorial comments:

Shouldn't the IANA considerations instruct IANA to update the registries 
at 
http://www.iana.org/assignments/kerberos-parameters/kerberos-parameters.xhtml 
to update the three rows that currently point to 6112 to point to this 
document instead (or at least in addition to 6112)?

Micro-nit: There is a 2119 MUST carried forward from RFC6112 that could 
be improved if the group is willing. "Care MUST be taken by the TGS to 
not reveal". I would suggest "The TGS MUST NOT reveal...". If you need 
to further highlight care, add a sentence that says "Implementers need 
to be particularly careful when addressing this requirement." It is a 
very small nit - please feel free to ignore it.