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

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:30:12 -0500

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"

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:00:33 -0400

>>>>> "Mary" == Mary Barnes <[email-masked]> 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.