Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-rmt-flute-revised-

Request Review of draft-ietf-rmt-flute-revised
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 16)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2012-02-28
Requested 2012-02-23
Authors Toni Paila , Rod Walsh , Michael Luby , Vincent Roca , Rami Lehtonen
I-D last updated 2012-02-27
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -?? by Francis Dupont
Genart Last Call review of -?? by Francis Dupont
Secdir Last Call review of -?? by Dave Cridland
Assignment Reviewer Francis Dupont
State Completed
Review review-ietf-rmt-flute-revised-genart-lc-dupont-2012-02-27
Completed 2012-02-27
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-rmt-flute-revised-13.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20120229
IETF LC End Date: 20120224
IESG Telechat date: 20120301

Summary: Almost Ready

Important note: due to last comments from the Last Call it seems
there will be a -14 version...

Major issues: None

Minor issues: not a real one (it was inherited from RFC 5775) but
in the security considerations there is nothing about IPsec/AH
(BTW people who didn't implement it didn't implement the transport
mode (for IPsec/ESP) too :-).

Nits/editorial comments:
 - ToC page 3 and 9 page 36: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments

 - 1 page 6: please add a reference to RFC2357 (or make it an
  explicit reference)

 - 1.1.3 page 7: I suggest to add the "diode" in the environment
  where FLUTE can be used (diodes are more common than you can
  believe :-)

 - 3 page 9 (and other places): e.g. -> , e.g., and i.e. -> , i.e.,

 - 3.1 page 9: I'd like to get the type (e.g., integer) of fields,
  for instance I have no idea of what a TSI really looks like.

 - 6 page 27: session ; -> session; and at the next line
  session. -> session; (only the last item gets a dot)

 - 7.2.2 page 30: this is the place I am surprised to not get
  IPsec/AH [RFC4302] as an alternative to IPsec/ESP [RFC4303]
  when integrity and sender authentication is wanted.

 - 10 page 36:
  52134 Herzogenrath, Germany ->
  52134 Herzogenrath

 - Authors' Addresses page 45: US -> USA
  (note: the Innovallee; is dubious too)


Francis.Dupont at

PS: I expect to get the new version so to have more time
to read (more) carefully the body of the document (i.e., 3 - 6).