Thanks for your review, and good questions, Christer. Authors, I have not seen 
a response or a new version. What’s up?

Jari

On 07 May 2016, at 17:48, Christer Holmberg <[email protected]> 
wrote:

> 
> 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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Reply via email to