Hi Francis, thanks for you feedback, it will be visible in the next version of the HIP DEX document.
to, 2019-11-14 kello 15:28 +0100, Francis Dupont kirjoitti: > 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 fixed thanks! > - 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) we have ongoing discussion on this topic (some disclaimer will be added to the intro). > - 5.3.2 page 23: return-routablility -> return-routability fixed, thanks > - 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) I guess no change is needed, but just for clarification: k=0: return routability cookie k>0: return routability + DoS prevention > - 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. I changed Acknowledgments to Acknowledgements > - 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 fixed. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
