Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-sidr-adverse-actions-03

Request Review of draft-ietf-sidr-adverse-actions
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-01-10
Requested 2016-12-20
Authors Stephen Kent , Di Ma
I-D last updated 2017-01-09
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Brian Weis (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -03 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -03 by Qin Wu (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Dan Romascanu
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-sidr-adverse-actions by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 03 (document currently at 04)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2017-01-09
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-ietf-sidr-adverse-actions-??
Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review Date: 2017-01-09
IETF LC End Date: 2017-01-10
IESG Telechat date: 2017-01-19


This is a useful, clear and well-written document. I noticed a couple of nits,
I would be glad if they are at least explained if not acted upon. Otherwise
it's ready to go from the GenArt perspective.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

1. The title is slightly misleading, it can be interpreted that the document
deals with cases where the CA or Resource Manager initiate the attacks. In
reality the document deals with attacks made possible by the fact that the CA
or Resource Managers are themselves under attack, or some management mistakes
were made at the CA or Resource Manager. I would suggest a change in the title
of the document:

s/Adverse Actions by a Certification Authority (CA) or Repository
Manager/Adverse Actions by means of a Certification Authority (CA) or
Repository Manager/

2. It is not clear why the numbering of the actions in the subsections of
section 2 (2.1, 2,2, etc.) are prefixed by A, rather than continuing the
indentation under 2.1, 2.2, etc. In other words - why A-1.1 and not 2.1.1,
A-1.1.1 and not, etc.