Telechat Review of draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-10
review-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-10-genart-telechat-shirazipour-2017-04-13-00
| Request | Review of | draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 25) | |
| Type | Telechat Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2017-04-11 | |
| Requested | 2017-03-26 | |
| Authors | Kathleen Moriarty , Al Morton | |
| I-D last updated | 2017-04-13 | |
| Completed reviews |
Secdir Telechat review of -09
by Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -10 by Meral Shirazipour (diff) Rtgdir Last Call review of -13 by Ines Robles (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -13 by Joe Clarke (diff) Genart Last Call review of -13 by Meral Shirazipour (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -13 by Rifaat Shekh-Yusef (diff) Genart Telechat review of -15 by Meral Shirazipour (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Meral Shirazipour |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Telechat review on draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
| Reviewed revision | 10 (document currently at 25) | |
| Result | Ready w/nits | |
| Completed | 2017-04-13 |
review-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-10-genart-telechat-shirazipour-2017-04-13-00
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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. For more information, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-10 Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour Review Date: 2017-04-12 IETF LC End Date: 2017-03-13 IESG Telechat date: 2017-04-13 Summary: This draft is ready to be published as Informational RFC but I have come comments. Major issues: Minor issues: Nits/editorial comments: -[Page 5], it would be good to give a reference after “Following the Snowden revelations”. -[Page 6], “the new network?s”—->”the new network’s “ -[Page 7], “for today?s”--->for today’s” -[Page 9], “pervassive”--->”perversive” -[Page 10], “proividers”--->“providers” -Section 2, some use cases in subsections of section 2 refer to mobile network scenario. Are they only applicable in mobile networks? e.g. HTTP redirect. -Section 2.6.2 should maybe be renamed to “zero rating”. -[Page 18], “acheive”--->”achieve” -general: -> text uses “middle box” and “middlebox”. Please use middlebox. ->please spell out acronyms at first use Best Regards, Meral --- Meral Shirazipour Ericsson Research www.ericsson.com