Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-weis-gdoi-rekey-ack-05

Request Review of draft-weis-gdoi-rekey-ack
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-07-17
Requested 2017-06-19
Authors Brian Weis , Umesh Mangla , Thomas Karl , Nilesh Maheshwari
I-D last updated 2017-06-26
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Yaron Sheffer (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -05 by Roni Even (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Zitao Wang (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -06 by Roni Even (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Roni Even
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-weis-gdoi-rekey-ack by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 07)
Result Almost ready
Completed 2017-06-26
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-weis-gdoi-rekey-ack-??
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2017-06-26
IETF LC End Date: 2017-07-17
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

The document is almost ready for publication as standard track document
Major issues:

Minor issues:

1. In section 2 it says "A GM  receiving the KEK_ACK_REQUESTED attribute can
choose to ignore it, thus appearing as if it does not support the
KEK_ACK_REQUESTED  attribute.". Any reason for the GM to ignore the message? 2.
In section 4 and section 6 it says the the GM SHOULD send an acknowledgement
message. Is there a case when the GM should not send and if not why is this a
SHOULD and not a MUST? 3.  In section 6 "A non-receipt of an Acknowledgement is
an indication that a GM is  either unable or unwilling  to respond".  What
about if the Acknowledgement message was lost? Any reliability procedure?

Nits/editorial comments:

1. In section 6 "Also a GM may be  willing or able to respond with an
GROUPKEY-PUSH ACK " . I cannot parse this sentence in the context of the section