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-hip-dex-11.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 20191107 IETF LC End Date: 20191114 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: - 1.2 page 6: highligts -> highlights - 3 page 8: RFC 6090 does not fully define ECDH because of the "compact" representation. Now it is a detail and if it can have an impact for implementors I think the security directorate will ask for a clarification (and in general I rely on the security directorate for all security related points, for instance whether DEX has a formal proof of its security properties) - 5.3.2 page 23: return-routablility -> return-routability - 4.1.1 page 11: I wonder if the puzzle solution check includes the check of the puzzle itself but the remark saying with K=0 the puzzle is just a retrun-routability cookie provided an answer... (so nothing to change) - at the exception of the Acknowledgments section you use the English spelling (with a 'e'): it is consistent with other HIP documents so I have no problem with this. - 4.1.3.1 page 14: "and he system" -> "and the system" - 9 page 42: perhaps a SHOULD in "Thus, any signaling that indicates such anonymity should be ignored as explained in Section 1.1." ? - 9 page 43: computated -> computed - B page 50: IEDG -> IESG Regards francis.dup...@fdupont.fr _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
