Christer, thanks for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot. Alissa
> On Nov 18, 2017, at 2:59 AM, Christer Holmberg > <christer.holmb...@ericsson.com> wrote: > > Reviewer: Christer Holmberg > Review result: Ready with Nits > > 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 treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-ipsecme-eddsa-04 > Reviewer: Christer Holmberg > Review Date: 2017-11-17 > IETF LC End Date: 2017-12-04 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: The document is well written, and almost ready for publication. > However, I have some editorial change suggestions that I think would improve > the readability of the document. > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: None > > Nits/editorial comments: > > Q1: > ---- > > In the Abstract the text says " Edwards-curve digital signature algorithm", > without the EdDSA abbreviation, and in the Introduction the text says "EdDSA" > without the enhancement. > > I suggest to say "Edwards-curve digital signature algorithm (EdDSA)" in the > first occurrences within the Abstract and the Introduction. > > Q2: > ---- > > In the Introduction the text says "The latter RFC" and "that document". I > suggest to explicitly use the RFC numbers instead. > > That makes it easier to read, and there is always a theoretical change that > someone files an errata, or update the text within another RFC, that changes > the order to the RFCs so that "The latter" etc points to the wrong RFC... > > Q3: > ---- > > In the Introduction the text says: > > "EdDSA defines the binary format of the signatures that should be used > in the "Signature Value" field of the Authentication Data Format in > section 3." > > Section 3 of what? I assume you refer section 3 of RFC 8032, so I suggest to > explicitly say that. Otherwise someone (at least I did) may jump to section 3 > of the draft and start looking. > > The same thing applies to "Appendix A". Please indicate the RFC number. > > Q4: > ---- > > In the Introduction the text says: > > "we define a new value" > > I suggest to say "this document defines a new value". > > Or, you could even say "section 2 of this document defines a new value". > > Q5: > ---- > > In section 3, I suggest to add a reference (URL?) to the hash algorithm > registry. > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > gen-...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
