Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-04

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 00:31:51 -0500

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-04.txt
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: 6 Jul 2007
IESG Telechat date: 6 Jul 2007

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational.

The introduction does a good job of introducing the problem
for which the requirements are being sought.  Having said that,
a few nits follow primarily to improve readability of the draft.

1) S1, consider rewriting as follows to impart more clarity:

OLD:
    This ambiguity can be used to mount a bid down attack
    which is inherent with systems that allow optional
    authentication like email
NEW:
    This ambiguity can be used to mount a bid-down attack
    that is inherent with systems like email, which allow
    optional authentication

2) S3, consider rewriting as follows to impart more clarity:

OLD:
    This section tries to outline some usage scenarios
    that it is expected that DKIM signing/verifying will take place in,
    and how a new protocol might be helpful to clarify the relevance of
    DKIM signed mail.
NEW:
    This section outlines expected usage scenarios where DKIM
    signaling/verifying will take place, and how a new protocol
    might help to clarify the relevance of DKIM-signed mail.

3) S3.1, second paragraph: consider rewriting as follows to
  impart more clarity:

OLD:
    Thus the receiver is at a disadvantage in that it does not know
    if it should ...
NEW:
    Thus, the receiver is at a disadvantage in not knowing whether
    it should ...

4) S3.2, list item 3: The first sentence consists of two fragments
  joined by a "but".  It would be more appropriate to join them by
  the phrase ", and furthermore".  The second fragment does not
  contradict the first, thus the "but" appears anomalous.

5) S5.1, list item 4: Missing closing ']' in "Refs:..."

6) S5.2, list item 3: s/ala/a la/

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
2701 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9F-546, Lisle, Illinois 60532 (USA)
Email: vkg@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org}
WWW:   http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/bell-labs

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art