Document: draft-ietf-radext-radiusdtls-bis Title: RadSec: RADIUS over Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Reviewer: Mallory Knodel Review result: Ready
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://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>. Document: draft-ietf-radext-radiusdtls-bis-?? Reviewer: Mallory Knodel Review Date: 2026-02-23 IETF LC End Date: 2026-02-23 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: RadSec specification for RADIUS over TLS and DTLS. Major issues: None. As a general review this document is ready. Minor issues: None. All of my comments are to help improve what is already an excellent document and are in no way blocking, so I've placed them below. Nits/editorial comments: * In the introduction you might add a final sentence that briefly states that the intention of RadSec is to address the shortcomings explained in the second paragraph so that anyone reading this specification is given some hope as they embark on the subsequent 45 pages. * The line, "Whenever "(D)TLS", "RADIUS/(D)TLS" or "RadSec" is mentioned, the... might be better placed at the top of the conventions and terminology section since it bears upon the content of that section somewhat. * I expected a colon to end this sentence in 3.4. "Depending on the trust model used, the RadSec client identity is determined as follows." and for the following two items to be bullet points. If this is not correct, it would be good to define "what follows" specifically refers to. * Finally I just want to appreciate the security considerations section for its thoroughness. The information there is exceedingly clear and presented in an accessible way. * I am not sure I have reviewed a draft with a "Design Decisions" section. If there is a convention for this section, then my comment can be ignored. I only wonder if it shouldn't be above security considerations given how crucial that section is to this specification and that most readers look for it at the end of the document. I should think IANA > security > design decisions are roughly in that order of importance and so their placement in the draft might reflect that prioritization. Thank you for the hard work on this document! _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
