Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lisp-crypto-09
review-ietf-lisp-crypto-09-genart-lc-resnick-2016-10-13-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-lisp-crypto
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2016-10-04
Requested 2016-09-22
Draft last updated 2016-10-13
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -09 by Pete Resnick (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Chris Lonvick (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -07 by Susan Hares (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -06 by Danny McPherson (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Pete Resnick
State Completed
Review review-ietf-lisp-crypto-09-genart-lc-resnick-2016-10-13
Reviewed rev. 09 (document currently at 10)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2016-10-13

Review
review-ietf-lisp-crypto-09-genart-lc-resnick-2016-10-13

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-lisp-crypto-09
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review Date: 2016-10-12
IETF LC End Date: 2016-10-04
IESG Telechat date: 2016-10-13

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Experimental RFC

Though this is not an area of expertise for me, the document is clearly 
written, I reviewed the data structures and they appear correct, and the 
document seems ready to go forward. (I do find it dicey that this is an 
Experimental document. I understand there is history here, but this is a 
full-fledged protocol document and the fact that it is only required to 
be subjected to a cursory review for Experimental status and can pass 
IESG review with one "YES" and everyone else "ABSTAIN"ing seems kinda 
ridiculous. But that's not a reason to stop this document.)

Major issues:

None

Minor issues:

None

Nits/editorial comments:

Section 9, second to last paragraph: "Otherwise, the packet has been 
tampered with and is discarded." The "tampered with" is probably 
overstating the case. I would simply say "invalid".

-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478