Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control-04

[[e-mail]]

Hi Christer, 

Thank you for the review. 

OK with all your suggestions. 

FWIW, you can track the changes to address your review at: https://github.com/boucadair/filter-control/blob/master/Christer's%20Review.pdf 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Christer Holmberg via Datatracker [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Envoyé : samedi 6 juin 2020 11:27
> À : [e-mail]
> Cc : [e-mail]; last-
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Objet : Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-
> control-04
> 
> Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> 
> 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
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control-04
> Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
> Review Date: 2020-06-06
> IETF LC End Date: 2020-06-15
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary: The document is well written, and pretty much ready for
> publication. I
> do have a couple of minor editorial comments that I'd like the authors
> to
> address.
> 
> Major issues: None
> 
> Minor issues: None
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> Q1:  Please expand DOTS on first occurence.
> 
> ---
> 
> Q2:  The Security Considerations say:
> 
>    "This specification does not allow to create new filtering rules,
>    which is the responsibility of the DOTS data channel."
> 
> Unless I missed it, I think it would be useful to state this also
> earlier in
> the document, e.g., in the Introduction.
> 
> ---
> 
> Q3: The Security Consideration say:
> 
>    "The security considerations discussed in
>    [I-D.ietf-dots-signal-channel] and [I-D.ietf-dots-data-channel]
> need
>    to be taken into account."
> 
> I think it is obvious that those security considerations need to be
> taken into
> account. I would suggest to re-phrase, and say something like:
> 
>    "The generic security considerations for DOTS signal channels are
>    defined in   [I-D.ietf-dots-signal-channel]. The generic security
>    considerations for DOTS data channels are defined in
>    [I-D.ietf-dots-data-channel]. This Section defines the security
>    considerations that are specific to the DOTS extension defined
>    in this document."
> 
>