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>
Document: draft-ietf-dime-e2e-sec-req-04
Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
Review Date: 7 May 2016
IETF LC End Date: 12 April 2016
IETF Telechat Date: N/A
Summary: The document is well written, and
almost ready for publication is informational RFC. However, I have a few
editorial issues, related to the Introduction, that I ask the authors to
address.
Major Issues: None
Minor Issues: None
Editorial Issues:
Q_ABSTRACT_1:
The text says that the draft "discusses" requirements. In my opinion it should
say "defines" or "specifies".
Q_INTRODUCTION_1:
Please add references for TLS (for TCP) and DTLS (for SCTP).
Q_INTRODUCTION_2:
The text says: "...or alternative security mechanisms independent of Diameter
(e.g., IPsec) is used."
2A: I guess it should be "are used"?
2B: I am not sure I understand what "independent of Diameter" means.
Q_INTRODUCTION_3:
The text talks about security between non-neighbour nodes, while the draft name
includes "e2e". However, when reading Section 4, non-neighbour does not
necessarily mean end-to-end. I think it would be good to explicitly clarify
that in the Introduction.
Q_INTRODUCTION_4:
The text says: "This document collects requirements for developing a solution
to protect Diameter AVPs."
2A: It needs to be clear that it's about protecting AVPs between non-neighbour
nodes.
2B: Instead of "collect", please use the same terminology as in the Abstract.
Q_INTRODUCTION_5:
Please enhance AVP on first occurrence. Currently it's not done
until Section 3.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
