Last Call Review of draft-santesson-auth-context-extension-09
review-santesson-auth-context-extension-09-genart-lc-korhonen-2015-10-15-00
Request | Review of | draft-santesson-auth-context-extension |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 12) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2015-10-27 | |
Requested | 2015-10-01 | |
Authors | Stefan Santesson | |
I-D last updated | 2015-10-15 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -09
by Jouni Korhonen
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -11 by Jouni Korhonen (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -09 by Matthew A. Miller (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -09 by Éric Vyncke (diff) Opsdir Telechat review of -11 by Éric Vyncke (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Jouni Korhonen |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-santesson-auth-context-extension by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 09 (document currently at 12) | |
Result | Ready w/nits | |
Completed | 2015-10-15 |
review-santesson-auth-context-extension-09-genart-lc-korhonen-2015-10-15-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document:draft-santesson-auth-context-extension-10 Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen Review Date: Oct-15-2015 IETF LC End Date: Oct-27-2015 IESG Telechat date: not yet Summary: -------- Ready for publication as an Informational RFC. Comments: --------- I do not have deep expertise on the area this I-D covers. Having read it through and knowing the solution is already deployed for few years I have no technical comments. Minor issues/nits: ------------------ 1) IDNits result that need to be addressed: ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC5280], [SAML]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. 2) == Unused Reference: 'RFC5322' is defined on line 416, but no explicit reference was found in the text 3) Since this targets Informational RFC I wouldn't mind seeing all references except RFC2119 as informational references and not normative. We could argue whether RFC2119 language is needed at all (but no strong opinion here). 4) Introduction third paragraph: * expand SAML on the first occurrence * I would welcome a reference for "SAML federation" 5) Introduction eight paragraph: * expand CA on the first occurrence 6) Section 3.1.2: * expand OID on the first occurrence (now it comes after the paragraph explaining "Ref") * three times s/REF/Ref