Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-hip-multihoming-10

[Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tom,

could you please address Meral's review below?

Thanks,

Gonzalo

On 20/08/2016 6:33 AM, Meral Shirazipour 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> .
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-hip-multihoming-10
> 
> Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour
> 
> Review Date: 2016-08-19
> 
> IETF LC End Date:  2016-08-25
> 
> IESG Telechat date: NA
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Summary:
> 
> This draft is ready to be published as Standards Track RFC, but I have
> some comments (nits).
> 
>  
> 
> Major issues:
> 
>  
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
>  
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> -[Page 4], "ESP transform [RFC7402]"--typo?-->"ESP transport [RFC7402]"
> 
> -[Page 4], please spell out SPI at first use: "Security Parameter Index
> (SPI)"
> 
> -[Page 5], "elements of procedure,"--->"elements of the procedure."
> 
> -[Page 6], "in R1, I2, or R2 packets"..., suggestion to add ref. to 
> RFC7401 here.
> 
> -[Page 6], "(ESP SAs may have an anti-replay window sensitive to
> reordering)", suggestion to add ref. to RFC4303 here.
> 
> -[Page 8], "ACTIVE statte"--typo-->"ACTIVE state"
> 
> -[Page 13], "that a host send"--->"that a host sends"
> 
> -[Page 16], ".  Mark all addresses....", not clear who marks? the host?.
> It would be better to clarify the sentence.
> 
> -[Page 18], "capabilities for mobility also carry over to mobility", did
> we mean to multihoming?
> 
> -[Page 18], "threats discussed in [RFC4218] involves"--no s-->"threats
> discussed in [RFC4218] involve"
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Meral
> 
> ---
> 
> Meral Shirazipour
> 
> Ericsson
> 
> Research
> 
> www.ericsson.com
>