Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat Call review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc7321bis-05

[Meral Shirazipour <[e-mail]>]

Hi,
  thank you.

Best,
Meral

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Migault
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 3:08 PM
> To: Meral Shirazipour <[e-mail]>; draft-ietf-
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: Gen-ART Telechat Call review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc7321bis-05
> 
> Hi Meral,
> 
> Thank you for the review and your comments. As submission tool is closed
> until the next IETF, I have not been able to submit the updated version. This
> will be done as soon as the IETF starts. Please see inline my response.
> 
> Yours,
> Daniel
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Meral Shirazipour [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 4:22 PM
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Gen-ART Telechat Call review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc7321bis-05
> 
> 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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD
> before posting a new version of the draft.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc7321bis-05
> Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour
> Review Date: 2017-03-14
> IETF LC End Date: 2017-03-15
> IESG Telechat date: 2017-03-16
> 
> Summary: This draft is ready to be published as Standards RFC, but I have
> some comments.
> 
> Major issues:
> Minor issues:
> Nits/editorial comments:
> -[Page 4], "downgraded from MUST to MUST-". MUST- is defined later in the
> document. Perhaps a reference in the text should point to that section on
> p.5.
> 
> MGLT:
> Here is what I propose:
> 
> OLD text:
> """
> Unless there are strong security reasons, an algorithm is expected to be
>    downgraded from MUST to MUST- or SHOULD, instead of MUST NOT.
> """
> 
> NEW text:
> """
> Unless there are strong security reasons, an algorithm is expected to be
> downgraded from MUST to MUST- or SHOULD, instead of MUST NOT (See
> Section 2 for a definition of the terminology).
> 
> """
> 
> -[Page 7], "were not been mentioned"---->"have not been mentioned"
> 
> MGLT: corrected
> 
> -[Page 7], "this document clarify"---->"this document clarifies"
> 
> MGLT: corrected
> 
> -[Page 11], "that revisions of that"---->"that revisions of this"
> 
> MGLT: corrected
> 
> -general, some acronyms are not spelled out...VPN, MTU..
> 
> MGLT: These are the acronyms I found, the following acronyms:
> UNSPECIFIED.  CPU IKEv2 IANA VPN PFS AEAD All have been spelled out
> except IANA and CPU and UNSPECIFIED.  I added a reference to RFC7296 at
> the first IKEv2 instance
> 
> 
> -Tables P.5,6,8,9,10. Giving them a caption would make the document clearer
> 
> MGLT: I added the titles, but the output was pretty ugly (in my opinion) due
> to the postambules. As titles repeat the section title I preferred to remove
> the titles and let a note to the RFC editor to do what seems to him the most
> appropriated way to present the tables.