[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-arch-09.txt
Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr> Mon, 16 February 2015 13:30 UTC
Return-Path: <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79CF51A1AF5 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 05:30:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.562
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f9_uB_U3xTrw for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 05:30:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5785F1A1AF0 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 05:30:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id t1GDQewi093990; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:26:40 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr)
Message-Id: <201502161326.t1GDQewi093990@givry.fdupont.fr>
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:26:40 +0100
Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/1l_S40usU1u3CskvhPCboREtpmA>
Cc: draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-arch.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-arch-09.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 13:30:41 -0000
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>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-arch-09.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 20150212 IETF LC End Date: 20150206 IESG Telechat date: 20150219 Summary: Almost Ready Major issues: None Minor issues: the authentication in DHCPv6 (RFC 3315 section 21) is considered in the document as a strong authentication. I have to disagree with this, in particular when it comes with SeND... i.e., IMHO the authentication in DHCPv6 is mainly in the name/title. Note there is a current work for a (real/strong) authentication in DHCPv6. Now it is my own opinion: I leave this to the IESG and the security directorate. Nits/editorial comments: These are related to the 09 version (the 10 version was published too late for me but there are a few changes between 09 and 10). - Abstract page 1 and 1 page 3: expand the MIF abbrev - 2.2 page 6: beloinging -> belonging - 2.4 page 7: advertize -> advertise - 3.2 page 8: first occurrence of DHCPv6 auth: "DHCPv6 and RAs both provide some form of authentication..." Note the next sentence states that authentication is not authorization (something you could always remind of :-). To avoid a future confusion between DHCPv6 auth and draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6 IMHO an explicit reference is required (and I suggest to add the SeND reference too). - 3.3 page 8: i.e. -> i.e., - 3.3 page 8: utiilize -> utilize - 3.5 page 9: formally this subsection 3.5 about IKEv2 doesn't belong to section 3... I have no idea about to fix this (nor whether it should be fixed :-) - 4.1 page 10: in the figure I expect one (vs. two) Internet cloud - 5.2.1 page 12: e.g. -> e.g., (and 5.2.4 page 15, 5.3 page 5, 5.3 page 16 (twice), 5.4 page 16) - 5.2.2 page 13 (twice): advertized -> advertised - 7.1 page 18: Wifi -> Wi-Fi (wikipedia says WiFi is incorrect too) - 11 page 20: E.g. -> E.g., - 11 page 20: there are a lot of RFC 2119 keywords used in lower cases in this section. But the fact of they are keywords is not bound to the case, so please consider: - either to promote them to more visible keywords, i.e., put them in upper case - either to use a synonym wording (e.g., must -> has to) so there is no ambiguity. BTW I expect the first solution in Security Considerations but it is not the only place where this problem occurs, just the more visible/critical one. - 11 page 20: my speller doesn't like authenticatable (I can't find a synonym but IMHO the simplest is to remove this word): PvD identifier to an authenticatable identity, and must be able to authenticate that identity -> PvD identifier to an identity, and must be able to authenticate that identity Regards Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr
- [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-arch-09.t… Francis Dupont
- Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-arch-… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-arch-… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-arch-… Ted Lemon
- Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-arch-… Dmitry Anipko