A few things that earned a red pen while I was reading. Sadly, I did not have time to correlate with other reviews, so probably some of these were already caught.
Abstract: "recognized that making networks unmanageable" (add "that") comma --> semicolon after outcome Section 1.1, first paragraph, last sentence: this sentence is pretty rambly -- "the acceptance of" may be unneeded, and the last clause could become ", since the latter is more easily deployed than the former, and is preferrable to no encryption at all" Page 5, last line, s/enhances/enhance/ Page 6, second paragraph, "preventing the vulnerability described above by providing an end-to-end solution" -- "providing an end-to-end solution" does not itself describe a vulnerability. Page 7, first (partial) paragraph, last sentence: there seem to be missing or vague (pro)nouns -- who is "they", and the actions are taken by several what? Section 2, second pargraph, s/purpose of each technique/purpose of several techniques/ -- this is not an exhaustive listing. Section 2.2.1, first paragraph, does "this configuration" inherently require TLS termination, or only some configurations of it? Page 12, penultimate and last paragraphs: we seem to talk about using the sequence number as a cookie before we talk about TCP allowing the use of server-generated sequence numbers for a side channel, which seems out of order. I'm pretty sure (e.g.) Christian already noted that section 2.2.3 reads more like a note-to-self than complete sentences, but just in case he didn't, it does. Section 2.2.4, first sentence, s/,/;/ to avoid a comma splice Page 14, last line, s/changing/changes Section 2.2.5, first paragraph, last sentence, I think it would help to clarify the nature of the business risk, since it's not really covered very much immediately prior. I'm not sure that the last paragraph of section 2.2.7 adds any value. Section 2.3, last sentence, s/,/;/ again Page 17, last (partial) pargraph, second sentence, s/,/;/ Next sentence, I don't think this si really TLS-specific, and I might s/where this/that/, if I understand the intent correctly. I'm always surprised to see "SPAM" in all-caps, as it's not an acronym or abbreviation. Page 26, second line, "the storage" (add "the") Section 4.1.3.2: second line, s/allow/allows/ s/The use TCP/The use of TCP/ last sentence, "Troubleshooting capabilities with encrypted sessions from the middlebox may be limited to the use of [...]" Page 38, first complete sentence, I don't understand what this is trying to say. Currently you'll usally see an SNI; is this trying to say that in a move to a more-encrypted world this signal will go away? Section 7.4, I'm a bit confused by the first sentence. Maybe, "Transport header encryption prevents trusted transit proxies from [existing|doing some sort of thing]"? Or maybe just s/prevents/prohibits/? Page 41, OS is used before it is expanded. Hope this is helpful (and feel free to repost somewhere public if you think it's merited), Benjamin _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
