Last Call Review of draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization-05
review-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization-05-secdir-lc-lonvick-2013-11-05-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2013-11-01
Requested 2013-10-24
Authors Luis Contreras, Carlos Bernardos, Ignacio Soto
Draft last updated 2013-11-05
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -05 by Scott Brim (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -06 by Scott Brim (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Chris Lonvick (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Chris Lonvick 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization-05-secdir-lc-lonvick-2013-11-05
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 07)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2013-11-05

Review
review-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization-05-secdir-lc-lonvick-2013-11-05

Hi,

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's 
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the 
IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the 
security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat 
these comments just like any other last call comments.

Overall, I found the document to be understandable and I believe that all of the security concerns have been documented.

I did find some editorial nits that you may want to address.

In Section 2, the phrase "Along this document..." is used.  It would be better to use something like, "In this document...".

In Section 4.3.1.2, the phrase "which is be responsible of managing this counter." is used.  I think it would be better to use "which is responsible for managing this counter.".

The first sentence in Section 9 is, "This document defines the new following elements which values to be allocated by IANA:"  I think it would be better to say "This document establishes new assignments to the IANA mobility parameters registry."

Best regards,
Chris