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 revision | 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 | |
Authors | Dino Farinacci , Brian Weis | |
I-D 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 M. Lonvick (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -07 by Susan Hares (diff) Rtgdir Early review of -06 by Danny R. McPherson (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Pete Resnick |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-lisp-crypto by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 09 (document currently at 10) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2016-10-13 |
review-ietf-lisp-crypto-09-genart-lc-resnick-2016-10-13-00
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-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