Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-06

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 16:53:16 +0000

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

< http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__wiki.tools.ietf.org_area_gen_trac_wiki_GenArtfaq&d=BQICAg&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31OcNXCJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=I5w-zqhErChUOoLzPbfnc5q4QAnQBWAJUImX_ocF2PI&s=G5nNtC3MnxOIveGWM1XBHjDn3cEV_Kl-HTkJ9jXPp00&e=%20> >.

Document: draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-06

Reviewer: Dan Romascanu

Review Date: 1/7/2016

IETF LC End Date: 12/28/2015

IESG Telechat date:

Summary: On the right track

The document is well structured, but there are a number of issues that must be fixed before it is approved by the IESG.

Major issues:

1.       The Type number values mentioned in Section 2 (after the certificate types table) refer to the values in RFC 6253 (that go to 8) and not in the values in this document.

2.       The IANA Considerations section needs in my opinion to be re-written. RFC 6263 was an Experimental RFC, this document has an Intended Status of Standards Track, it cannot just refer to the content of the document that it is obsoleting.

3.       A new Certificate type registry needs to be defined in my opinion. Older values in the registry were 0 to 8, this document should not use values of 0 to 4 in the same registry while some of the values have different semantics.

Minor issues:

1.       The front page does not provide the initials of the first name of the authors. This may seem a nit, but there may be tools that are used with processing the initials of the authors name.

2.       Inconsistent use of CERT (the parameter in RFC 7401) and Cert (as in Cert group, Cert count, etc.). Any special reason not to write consistently CERT every place?

3.       I am missing a section that would remain in the document (unlike Appendix B which I suspect will be taken out at publication) and that shortly lists the changes from RFC 6253 and their motivation.

Nits/editorial comments:

---

From: Terry Manderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 07:04:18 +0000

Dan,

Thank you for your review.

hip-rfc6253-bis authors and shepherd,

	There are some concerning aspects to Dan's review. Given that Dan
recommends a new Certificate type registry "item 3", I'm thinking of
passing this document back to the WG to consider this along with a
constructing a new IANA considerations section.

Is there any reason, in your opinion that this (send back to the WG)
should not be the next action?

Cheers
Terry

On 8/01/2016 2:53 am, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>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.
> 
><
>http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq
><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__wiki.tools.ietf.org_a
>rea_gen_trac_wiki_GenArtfaq&d=BQICAg&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31O
>cNXCJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=I5w-zqhErChUOoLzPbfnc5q4QAnQBWAJUImX_o
>cF2PI&s=G5nNtC3MnxOIveGWM1XBHjDn3cEV_Kl-HTkJ9jXPp00&e=%20>>.
> 
>The document is well structured, but there are a number of issues that
>must be fixed before it is approved by the IESG.
>
> 
>Major issues:
> 
>1.      
>The Type number values mentioned in Section 2 (after the certificate
>types table) refer to the values in RFC 6253 (that go to 8) and not in
>the values in this document.
>2.      
>The IANA Considerations section needs in my opinion to be re-written. RFC
>6263 was an Experimental RFC, this document has an Intended Status of
>Standards Track, it cannot just refer to the content of the document
> that it is obsoleting.
>3.      
>A new Certificate type registry needs to be defined in my opinion. Older
>values in the registry were 0 to 8, this document should not use values
>of 0 to 4 in the same registry while some of the values have different
> semantics.
> 
>Minor issues:
> 
>1.      
>The front page does not provide the initials of the first name of the
>authors. This may seem a nit, but there may be tools that are used with
>processing the initials of the authors name.
>
>2.      
>Inconsistent use of CERT (the parameter in RFC 7401) and Cert (as in Cert
>group, Cert count, etc.). Any special reason not to write consistently
>CERT every place?
>
>3.      
>I am missing a section that would remain in the document (unlike Appendix
>B which I suspect will be taken out at publication) and that shortly
>lists the changes from RFC 6253 and their motivation.
>
> 
>Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> 
>