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

[Terry Manderson <[e-mail]>]

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)" <[e-mail]> 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.
> 
>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_a
>rea_gen_trac_wiki_GenArtfaq&d=BQICAg&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31O
>cNXCJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=I5w-zqhErChUOoLzPbfnc5q4QAnQBWAJUImX_o
>cF2PI&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:
> 
> 
>