Hi Meral, Thank you for the review and your comments. As submission tool is closed until the next IETF, I have not been able to submit the updated version. This will be done as soon as the IETF starts. Please see inline my response.
Yours, Daniel -----Original Message----- From: Meral Shirazipour [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 4:22 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Gen-ART Telechat Call review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc7321bis-05 I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. For more information, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc7321bis-05 Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour Review Date: 2017-03-14 IETF LC End Date: 2017-03-15 IESG Telechat date: 2017-03-16 Summary: This draft is ready to be published as Standards RFC, but I have some comments. Major issues: Minor issues: Nits/editorial comments: -[Page 4], "downgraded from MUST to MUST-". MUST- is defined later in the document. Perhaps a reference in the text should point to that section on p.5. MGLT: Here is what I propose: OLD text: """ Unless there are strong security reasons, an algorithm is expected to be downgraded from MUST to MUST- or SHOULD, instead of MUST NOT. """ NEW text: """ Unless there are strong security reasons, an algorithm is expected to be downgraded from MUST to MUST- or SHOULD, instead of MUST NOT (See Section 2 for a definition of the terminology). """ -[Page 7], "were not been mentioned"---->"have not been mentioned" MGLT: corrected -[Page 7], "this document clarify"---->"this document clarifies" MGLT: corrected -[Page 11], "that revisions of that"---->"that revisions of this" MGLT: corrected -general, some acronyms are not spelled out...VPN, MTU.. MGLT: These are the acronyms I found, the following acronyms: UNSPECIFIED. CPU IKEv2 IANA VPN PFS AEAD All have been spelled out except IANA and CPU and UNSPECIFIED. I added a reference to RFC7296 at the first IKEv2 instance -Tables P.5,6,8,9,10. Giving them a caption would make the document clearer MGLT: I added the titles, but the output was pretty ugly (in my opinion) due to the postambules. As titles repeat the section title I preferred to remove the titles and let a note to the RFC editor to do what seems to him the most appropriated way to present the tables. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
