[Gen-art] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-isis-mi-07

[Wassim Haddad]

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background 
on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at 


Document: draft-ietf-isis-mi-07
Reviewer:  Wassim Haddad
Review Date:  24 Sept 2012
IETF LC End Date: 05 Sept 2012
IETF Telechat Date: 27 Sept. 2012

Summary:  This draft is ready for publication as proposed standard.

- Major Issues: None

- Minor Issues: None


Regards,

Wassim H.





___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

[Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-dime-erp-12

[Elwyn Davies]

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-dime-erp-12.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 24 September 2012
IETF LC End Date: 24 September 2012
IESG Telechat date: (if known) -

Summary:
Almost ready for the IESG.  There are some minor wording issues to sort 
out in s3, some advice on advertising domain names in s5 and possibly 
some extra words needed in the security considerations.  In addition 
there a few minor nits.


Major issues:
None.

Minor issues:
s3: Both paragraphs use the phrase '...document assumes the existence of 
at most one...'.  Does this really mean 'exactly one'?  If not, what 
happens if there is exactly zero servers for either type?  What would 
the consequences of there being more than one logical server?  Is this 
tied into the statement in s4:

 The ER server is located either in the home domain (same as EAP
 server) or in the visited domain (same as authenticator, when it
 differs from the home domain).
This would seem to imply that the zero case means that it may not be 
essential to have an ER server in a domain.


S3, para 1:

 If multiple ER servers are deployed in the domain, we assume that
 they can be used interchangeably.
Are we talking physical servers here?  If not please refer to the 
previous comment.


s5, para 1: How would the authenticator advertise the domain name in 
this context?


s13:  Looking at the various security considerations that are imported, 
I wondered if some extra words were needed in respect of a couple of the 
cases:
- s8.4 of RFC 4072: (does distributing the bootstrapping master key make 
things any worse here?)
- s8 of RFC 6696 (does the DIME usage preserve the limited key scope?; 
is the domino effect equally well avoided?)


Nits/editorial comments:

s1: 'and re-use the Diameter EAP commands (DER/DEA).' : DER and DEA 
ought to be expanded here. Or it might be less verbose to point at s2 
where they are currently expanded, thus: 'and re-use the Diameter EAP 
commands listed in Section 2.'


s2, para 2: Need to expand acronyms rRK and rDSRK.

s4, para 7: Should explicitly say that the ERP/DEA message is sent to 
the authenticator.


s8.3.3: s/RGC 6696/RFC 6696/


___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Review: draft-ietf-krb-wg-kerberos-referrals-14

[Sam Hartman]

> "Mary" == Mary Barnes  writes:


Mary> Minor Issue: 

Mary> Section 11, next to last paragraph, last sentence: "The value
Mary> for this padata item should be empty."

Mary> Is this really a "should" or is a MUST more appropriate? If
Mary> it's a "should" then the cases whereby the item is not empty
Mary> appropriate should be defined.

it's a future extensibility thing.
MUST send empty, MUSt ignore contents on receive might be a better way
to say this.
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

[Gen-art] Gen-ART Review: draft-ietf-krb-wg-kerberos-referrals-14

[Mary Barnes]

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-krb-wg-kerberos-referrals-14
Reviewer:  Mary Barnes
Review Date:  23 Sept 2012
IETF LC End Date: 26 Sept 2012
IETF Telechat Date: 27 Sept. 2012

Summary:  Ready with question/nits.

Minor Issue:


Section 11, next to last paragraph, last sentence: "The value for
   this padata item should be empty."

Is this really a "should" or is a MUST more appropriate? If it's a "should"
then the cases whereby the item is not empty appropriate should be defined.

Nits:

Section 6:
-  2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: "maintain ta set of aliases" -> "maintain a
set of aliases".

- 4th paragraph.  I would suggest to remove the parenthesis - no reason for
that statement not to be part of the main body of the previous paragraph.

Section 11:
- Paragraph after the schema:  "The The" -> "The"

Section 13.1:
- 1st paragraph: "previously send by the KDC" -> "previously sent by the
KDC"
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art