Hi Joe, It is my mistake for not cc'ing the draft authors in my email to Gen-ART and I apologize for that. Thanks for the clarification about "only" (it appeared to me first that the presence of the keyID "alone" may lead to breaking the unlinkability).
Regards, Wassim H. On Mar 10, 2010, at 2:35 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > Hi, all, > > Including both TSV ADs, the WG chairs, and the authors in this response. > See below. > > PS - it would be useful to include the document authors in Gen-ART > posts; we received this message indirectly by the IESG. > > Joe > > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: [Gen-art] [Gen-ART] review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-opt-10.txt >> Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 17:15:31 -0700 >> From: Wassim Haddad <[email protected]> >> To: Gen-art <[email protected]>, Lars Eggert <[email protected]> >> CC: Wassim Haddad <[email protected]> >> >> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer >> for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see >> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). >> >> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments >> you may receive. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-opt-10 >> Reviewer: Wassim Haddad >> Review Date: 2010-03-09 >> LC End Date: 2010-03-11 IESG Telechat date: 2010-03-11 >> >> Summary: Ready >> >> Major issues: None >> >> Minor issues: >> >> - Page 13, Figure 3: traffic keys derived show two "Send_Other_key" in >> all 3 boxes. >> Shouldn't be Rcv_Other_key? > > Yes. To be fixed. > >> - Page 37: sub-section 2: a) Privacy: "TCP exposes "only" the MKT IDs, >> MAC, and overall option. >> Question: is "only" really needed? > > In this context, I believe so. The previous paragraph discusses other > information that could have been included, and this sentence underscores > that such information is not. > >> Editorial/nits: >> >> - section 2.1: TCP-AO "is" not intended to replace the use of IPsec... > > To be fixed. > >> - section 2.2: IMHO, the following sentence is not clear: >> >> "This document differs from an IPsec/IKE solution in that TCP-AO as >> follows:" > > To be fixed. > >> - section 3: In this document, the characters ">>" proceeding... >> Is it proceeding or preceding? > > The latter. To be fixed. > >> - section 4.2: "The TCP-AO option fields do not indicate the MAC >> algorithm either implicitly (as with TCP MD5) or explicitly. >> >> either/or -> neither/nor > > The negative is already in the front of the sentence, so this should not > be updated as suggested. > >> - section 5.2: >> >> remove "Figure" (repeated twice) > > To be fixed. > > ---
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
