Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-rift-applicability-03
review-ietf-rift-applicability-03-secdir-lc-ladd-2021-01-19-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-rift-applicability-03
Requested revision 03 (document currently at 15)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2021-01-10
Requested 2020-12-09
Requested by Jeff Tantsura
Authors Yuehua Wei , Zheng Zhang , Dmitry Afanasiev , Pascal Thubert , Tony Przygienda
I-D last updated 2021-01-19
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -14 by Sasha Vainshtein (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -14 by Watson Ladd (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Watson Ladd (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -03 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Intdir Last Call review of -06 by Ralf Weber (diff)
Iotdir Last Call review of -03 by Samita Chakrabarti (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -03 by Mike McBride (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -03 by Tommy Pauly (diff)
Comments
The chairs are starting WGLC for the draft, we appreciate your reviews and comments.
Assignment Reviewer Watson Ladd
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-rift-applicability by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/-_Uhiz6i6eCzbM-iZSdtYw778yo
Reviewed revision 03 (document currently at 15)
Result Has nits
Completed 2021-01-19
review-ietf-rift-applicability-03-secdir-lc-ladd-2021-01-19-00
I read this document.

I found it had very helpful and informative examples. My one complaint is a
nit. My first issue is that https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7322#section-4.8.5
says all RFCs must have security considerations. Yes, even ones like this one
listing example networks and failures. In this case a short reference to the
security section of RIFT is entirely appropriate. I do have questions about the
empty Acknowledgements section and the Contributors section with one person and
address: seems a bit odd to me.

Sincerely,
Watson Ladd