Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pals-ms-pw-protection-03
review-ietf-pals-ms-pw-protection-03-secdir-lc-roca-2015-10-29-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-pals-ms-pw-protection
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2015-10-20
Requested 2015-10-08
Draft last updated 2015-10-29
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -03 by Peter Yee (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Vincent Roca (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -02 by Carlos Pignataro (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Vincent Roca
State Completed
Review review-ietf-pals-ms-pw-protection-03-secdir-lc-roca-2015-10-29
Reviewed rev. 03 (document currently at 04)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2015-10-29

Review
review-ietf-pals-ms-pw-protection-03-secdir-lc-roca-2015-10-29

Hello,

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.

IMHO, the document is 

ready.

This document refers to RFC 6478 and other RFCs for the security considerations.

Given that no new mechanism is defined this seems reasonable. 

Additional comments:

- Introduction: the PSN acronym is not expanded nor introduced.

- Fig. 1 refers to T-PE1 and T-PE2, while the corresponding description mentions PE1 and PE2:

 

« In this figure, CE1 is connected to PE1 and CE2 is connected to PE2."

- typo, p.4: s/describes/describe in:

 

« Sections 

6

 and 

7

 of 

RFC 6870

 describes… »

  Also the references to section 6 and 7 point to the current I-D rather than sections 6 and 7 of RFC 6870.

 

Cheers,

  Vincent

Attachment:


signature.asc




Description:

 Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail