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 revision | 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 | |
Authors | Larry Zhu , Paul J. Leach , Sam Hartman , Shawn M Emery | |
I-D last updated | 2016-10-21 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -02
by Robert Sparks
(diff)
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 |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Robert Sparks |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-kitten-rfc6112bis by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 02 (document currently at 03) | |
Result | Ready w/nits | |
Completed | 2016-10-21 |
review-ietf-kitten-rfc6112bis-02-genart-lc-sparks-2016-10-21-00
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.