Last Call Review of draft-ietf-modern-problem-framework-03
review-ietf-modern-problem-framework-03-genart-lc-halpern-2018-02-06-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-modern-problem-framework
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-02-15
Requested 2018-02-01
Other Reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -03 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Yoav Nir (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Joel Halpern
Review review-ietf-modern-problem-framework-03-genart-lc-halpern-2018-02-06
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/eAr8Q7ZxNrnPm_W-t4uvErxzw-8
Reviewed rev. 03 (document currently at 04)
Review result Ready
Draft last updated 2018-02-06
Review completed: 2018-02-06

Review
review-ietf-modern-problem-framework-03-genart-lc-halpern-2018-02-06

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

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-modern-problem-framework-03
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2018-02-06
IETF LC End Date: 2018-02-15
IESG Telechat date: 2018-02-22

Summary: This document is ready for publication as an Informational RFC.

Major issues:

Minor issues:
    I presume that the lack of description on how to apply controls to semi-restricted or restricted data, particulalry in the distributed data store case, is deliberate?  I presume that the WG intent is that this is a topic to be dealt with in the solutions, not the problem statement and framework?  Things are fine if that is the intent.  If the WG views this as an actual useful description of how to handle those aspects, then I would ask for more descriptions.

Nits/editorial comments: 
     Editorial: In the definition of Credential Authority the text uses the phrase "one of more" when I am pretty sure the intent is "one or more".