Last Call Review of draft-ietf-nea-pt-tls-
review-ietf-nea-pt-tls-genart-lc-even-2012-06-07-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-nea-pt-tls
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2012-06-13
Requested 2012-05-31
Other Reviews Genart Telechat review of - by Roni Even (diff)
Genart Telechat review of - by Roni Even (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Roni Even
Review review-ietf-nea-pt-tls-genart-lc-even-2012-06-07
Posted at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg07480.html
Draft last updated 2012-06-07
Review completed: 2012-06-07

Review
review-ietf-nea-pt-tls-genart-lc-even-2012-06-07

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

 

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.

 

Document: 

draft-ietf-nea-pt-tls-05

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2012–6–4

IETF LC End Date: 2012–6–13

IESG Telechat date:

 

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standard track 

RFC

.

 

Major issues:

 

Minor issues:

1.

       

In section 3.2 

“Therefore, this specification requests the IANA reserve a TCP port number for use with the PT-TLS protocol upon publication of this specification as an Internet standard RFC.” I think it will  be better to have here the assigned port number and instruct the RFC editor to put the correct value.

2.

       

In section 3.4.2.2 last paragraph you summarize the text from section 3.8 while in the paragraph above you provide the reference. Why do you need the last paragraph if 3.8 is referenced.

3.

       

In various places you refer to SMI 0 as IETF SMI number while according to the table it is IANA SMI number.

4.

       

I assume that all implementations MUST support message type vendor ID 0. Is this mentioned?

5.

       

In section 3.5 and 6.1 you propose a policy of “Expert Review with Specification Required “. I think that according to RFC5226 expert review is implied if you select a specification required policy.

6.

       

In section 3.6 on 9+ “Recipients of messages   of type 9 or higher that do not support the PT-TLS Message Type Vendor ID and PT-TLS Message Type of a received PT-TLS message MUST respond with a Type Not Supported PT-TLS error code in a PT-TLS Error message.” I think this is true only for Message Type Vendor ID 0.

7.

       

In 3.7.1 for Max vers and prefs ver you say that they MUST be set to 1. I think it will be more correct here to say SHOULD since you explain afterwards that they may have other values.

8.

       

In section 3.7.2 “the recipient SHOULD send”. Why not make it a MUST here.

9.

       

In section 3.7.2 “The version selected MUST be within the Min Vers to Max Vers inclusive range sent in the Version Request   Message” I was expecting to see pref ver here.

10.

   

In section 3.8.3 “ The SASL client authentication starts when the NEA Server  enters the PT-TLS Negotiation phase and its policy indicates  that an authentication of the NEA Client is necessary but was not performed during the TLS handshake protocol “ my read of  s

ection 3.8 second paragraph is that it can be done even if was done in the TLS handshake so the last part of the sentence is not correct, if there is a policy you do it anyhow. This comment is also for the third paragraph.

11.

   

In section 3.9 I noticed that you propose to send the entire original message. Isn’t it enough to send only the message identifier. This is based on the last sentence of this section.

12.

   

Most of the text in section 6.1 repeats RFC5226 but in your words. Are you trying to change some of RFC5226 text if not why write it in different words?

 

 

 

Nits/editorial comments: