I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for draft-ietf-rddp-rdmap-06.txt. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Summary: not Ready I have the same concern than for the companion I-D about DDP: the IPsec part (8.2.2) refers to an obsolete version of IPsec/IKE. Detailed comments: - i.e. -> i.e., and e.g. -> e.g., - 1.2 page 7: With -> with - 1.3 figure 2 page 11: I suggest to add // and lines to the payload. - 3.2 page 26: what is the "yesSTag" (IMHO there is a typo)? - 4.1 page 28: what are IETF RNICs and RDMA RNICs (and for the second the "R" in RNIC stands for RDMA, doesn't it)? - 4.4 pages 32/33: the title "RDMA Read Message Size" is very ambiguous (i.e., the common meaning is not the intented one). - 4.8 figure 9 page 37: the Nones for Local Catastrophic Error doesn't specify what to put in the (BTW not optional) fields. - 5.4 page 46: the DDP layer mark -> marks? - 5.5 20. page 50: more than one ... is -> are? (same 7.1 24. page 55) - 7.1 21. page 55: Errors -> errors. - 7.1 24. page 55: the rules 2 and 3 above are really 2 and 3 of 5.5? Or are they 22 and 23? - 8.1.1 8. page 58: range available -> available range. - 8.2.1 page 60: RFC2401 -> RFC4301 and IPsec an guarantee anti-replay, not sequencing. - 8.2.2 page 61...: look at my comments about DDP I-D. - 8.2.2 7. page 62: I disagree with the recommendation. I suggest to cite directly the draft-ietf-pki4ipsec-ikecert-profile-10.txt document than to overload the CERTREQ payload which as its name suggest requests that the peer sends a CERT payload through IKE... - 10.1/2 page 65: RFC240x -> RFC430y. - 10.2 page 66: RFC2246 -> RFC4346 (and TLS 1.0 -> 1.1). Regards [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
