Thnaks Russ, all valid comments. We'll take care of them at the end of Last Call.
Regards Brian On 06/10/2017 09:15, Russ Housley wrote: > Reviewer: Russ Housley > Review result: Has Issues > > I reviewed this document as part of the Security Directorate's ongoing > effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These > comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Security Area > Directors. Document authors, document editors, and WG chairs should > treat these comments just like any other IETF Last Call comments. > > Document: draft-ietf-anima-prefix-management-05 > Reviewer: Russ Housley > Review Date: 2017-10-05 > IETF LC End Date: 2017-10-12 > IESG Telechat date: Unknown > > Summary: Has Issues > > I did not review the state machines in detail. I assume that others > that are far more familiar with PIM have done s detailed review of them. > > > No Major Concerns > > > Minor Concerns > > This document uses "DHCPv6-PD" and "DHCPv6 PD". At first, I was going > to recommend picking one spelling. However, RFC 3633 does not define > either of these. So, some explanation is needed in addition to being > consistent. > > In Section 3, the document says that roles can be locally defined. If > I properly understood the rest of the document, this is just a indirect > way to state the prefix size. If I got that right, it would help to > explain this to the reader as soon as possible. > > In Section 3.2.1, please give some examples of device identities. Are > we talking about a serial number or something else? > > In Section 4.1, the document says: > > It should decide the length of the requested prefix and request it by > the mechanism described in Section 6. > > However, Section 6 talks about: > > ... Thus it would be possible to apply an > intended policy for every device in a simple way, without traditional > configuration files. > > I do not see how the mechanisms in Section 6 increases the allocation > for a single router. It seems to increase the allocation to all routers > with a particular role. > > > Nits > > Throughout the document, I find that "administrator(s)" grabs my > attention. I suggest that "administrators" would be better for the > reader. > > In Section 1, please spell out the first use of "ASA". > > In Section 3.1: s/with minimum efforts/with minimum effort/ > > > _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
