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

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

>Thank you for the review. 
>
>OK with all your suggestions. 

Thank You! :)

Regards,

Christer



FWIW, you can track the changes to address your review at: https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=db0f6041-85afa3e8-db0f20da-86959e472243-5faeb82b3c90bf51&q=1&e=f43c50b7-ac0b-4eba-bc4b-55c0e7f8a2b9&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fboucadair%2Ffilter-control%2Fblob%2Fmaster%2FChrister'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."
> 
>