Gregory Lebovitz <[email protected]> wrote on 24/03/2010 11:02:57 AM:
> Re: Gen art LC+TC review of: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-ao-crypto-02
>
> Gregory Lebovitz
>
> to:
>
> Avshalom Houri
>
> 24/03/2010 11:03 AM
>
> Cc:
>
> General Area Review Team, ekr, Russ Housley, lars.eggert, tcpm
>
> 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.
Initial sounds as an initial version. Maybe say the first in a series or
similar?
>
>
> 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.
>
I meant that I see the word MUST but I do not see the requirement itself.
Is the algorithm or the key derivation function are the requirements?
>
> 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.
I still think that the IESG should address this. Many times even WG
consensus is not accepted at the IESG level.
>
>
>
> 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/
Why to use an offensive word?
>
>
>
> 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
