Frances,
thank you for your review. I have made the changes in the forth-coming
12.txt excepts as follows:
On 11/14/19 9:28 AM, Francis Dupont wrote:
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)
I may step in it here, as it has been some time since I have really
studied 6090 and EC compact representations....
ECDH does not explicitly require compact representation. This is a
concern over what is transported and does get into the content of the HI
parameters. But this is covered in now HIs are represented over the wire
once you dig down into this. An implementer SHOULD see this. Of course
EC25519 in inherently compact.
If the Secdir wants more content on the representation of p256 etc, I
will figure it out.
- 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.
Rene and I discussed this early on. The English spelling is used pretty
much throughout over the American spelling.
- 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." ?
I have read this a number of times and I am having problems making this
a SHOULD. It others feel it SHOULD be so, I will accept this view.
- 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
