Avshalom, Thanks for your review. The indicated changes inline below have been made in -03, which will be issued shortly. See inline...
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Avshalom Houri <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 wait for direction from your document shepherd > or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > > Document: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-ao-crypto-02 > Reviewer: Avshalom Houri > Review Date: 2010-03-09 > IETF LC date: 2010-03-10 > IESG Telechat date: 2010-03-11 > > Summary: The draft is ready for a standard track RFC (see minor issues and > nits). > The document is a reasonable basis on which to build the salient part of > the > Internet infrastructure. > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: > > Line 211 > This is the initial specification of required cryptography for > > Why it is initial? Initial RFC? > TCP-AO is brand new, and this is the first ever specification of required cryptography for -AO. We assume, as time goes on, that others could follow. No change to text. > > Lines 232-238 > I do not see the requirements only MUSTs. > Not sure what you mean here. The "Requirement" is "MUST" as opposed to SHOULD or MAY. No change. > > Line 260 > "MUST" to implement, in order to drive vendors toward its use, and to > > Should the IETF include something as a must in order to drive its > implementation? This decision/text was re-worked several times and reflects WG consensus. No change. > > > Line 862: > above. We simply attempted to "put a fence around stupidity", in as > > Maybe change the language for the RFC? > makes sense. s/stupidity/foolishness/ > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > Line 182 > verification between to end-points. In order to accomplish this > -> verification between two end-points. In order to accomplish this > done > > > Line 384 > starts = 1. > > -> starts at 1. > because "i" is a counter, I think being precise with the "=" is appropriate. No change. Thanks again for the review, Gregory. > > --Avshalom > > > -- ---- IETF related email from Gregory M. Lebovitz Juniper Networks
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
