Thanks Avshalom for the review. I will update the draft with these comments along with the others in the next cut.
Cheers, Manav ________________________________ From: Avshalom Houri [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 9.57 PM To: Bhatia, Manav (Manav); [email protected]; General Area Review Team Cc: [email protected] Subject: Gen art LC review of draft-ietf-opsec-igp-crypto-requirements-00 I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-opsec-igp-crypto-requirements-00 Reviewer: Avshalom Houri Review Date: 2010-09-06 IETF LC End Date: 2010-09-03 IESG Telechat date: (if known) Summary: The document is almost ready for informational RFC Major issues: None Minor issues: The document can benefit from some editing/rephrasing to make it easier to read. Lines 236-237 understanding that interoperability considerations will require change to a MUST as operators migrate to this authentication scheme. -> Not sure what this actually means. Nits/editorial comments: Line 215 scheme as provides no protection against an attacker with access to -> scheme as it provides no protection against an attacker with access to Line 232 be deprecated in future. -> be deprecated in the future. Line 249 MD5 MUST be implemented, but its use may be deprecated in future. -> MD5 MUST be implemented, but its use may be deprecated in the future. Line 254 future. -> the future. Line 392 interoperability purposes, but its use may be deprecated in future. -> interoperability purposes, but its use may be deprecated in the future.
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
