Return-Path: X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16A861A0173 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2014 00:43:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LCNOvcNYqqoT for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2014 00:43:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from usevmg21.ericsson.net (usevmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B03F81A016B for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2014 00:43:27 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c6180641-f79916d00000623a-86-54792b2c8e76 Received: from EUSAAHC005.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.87]) by usevmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id EB.B6.25146.C2B29745; Sat, 29 Nov 2014 03:10:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from EUSAAMB107.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.124]) by EUSAAHC005.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.87]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Sat, 29 Nov 2014 03:43:20 -0500 From: Meral Shirazipour To: "draft-ietf-kitten-cammac.all@tools.ietf.org" , "gen-art@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-kitten-cammac-00 Thread-Index: AdALsFHzzMwqB+GZTPaeyWlPG88doQ== Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 08:43:20 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.11] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_ABCAA4EF18F17B4FB619EA93DEF7939A330314A4eusaamb107erics_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrMLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPuK6OdmWIwZcdahbbXzxmsrj66jOL A5PHkiU/mTy+XP7MFsAUxWWTkpqTWZZapG+XwJVx5Y5zwTGzircXrBsYW/W7GDk5JARMJBrv XGOCsMUkLtxbz9bFyMUhJHCEUWL/jL9QznJGiYb+JWBVbAIWEtt/P2cFSYgIdDFK/NvYwA6S EBZwkDjy8SWYLSLgKnFuRxMzhK0nsXDBf6AGDg4WAVWJqe2xIGFeAV+Jza9OsoDYjECbv59a AzafWUBc4taT+VAXCUgs2XOeGcIWlXj5+B8rhK0k8fH3fHaI+nyJCT3TmSBmCkqcnPmEZQKj 0Cwko2YhKZuFpAwiriOxYPcnNghbW2LZwtfMMPaZA4+ZkMUXMLKvYuQoLU4ty003MtzECIyF YxJsjjsYF3yyPMQowMGoxMNb8K8iRIg1say4MvcQozQHi5I4r2b1vGAhgfTEktTs1NSC1KL4 otKc1OJDjEwcnFINjBxCWqymhqeuH4w705Nm5SHAy+cnY89rus5nwZwHMybcS1zHfNnvhADr sS7zdrGzb4q4lS6LHmY576z17+CJHPWG0915k23+TRA58zL24vcXsRrLrj18V6V7y+/7v2vb dUPXHpWoeHB1lrksa1NPOFPZ5Bstt+zebljcKP2DPz96xjaFdaucVyixFGckGmoxFxUnAgA5 9Vp3ZgIAAA== Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/tI1dJP4y05KnyhleWwUA2Oo1Gew Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-kitten-cammac-00 X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 08:43:30 -0000 --_000_ABCAA4EF18F17B4FB619EA93DEF7939A330314A4eusaamb107erics_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-AR= T, please see the FAQ at http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenA= rtfaq. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you m= ay receive. Document: draft-ietf-kitten-cammac-00 Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour Review Date: 2014-11-29 IETF LC End Date: 2014-12-09 IESG Telechat date: NA Summary: This draft is ready to be published as Standards Track RFC but I have some = comments . Minor issues: Nits/editorial comments: [Page 1], Abstract section, please remove the duplication of the word abstr= act (first word of first sentence). [Page 1], Abstract, suggestion: the actual motivation should be briefly men= tioned in the abstract. (e.g. that AD-KDC-ISSUED is not sufficient in cases= where ...). [Page 3], "The svc-verifier element of the CAMMAC", is svc newly introduced= in this draft? If so it would be clearer to mention it, e.g. "The new svc-= verifier element of the CAMMAC" [Page 3], same sentence as above, should it be "AD-CAMMAC" instead of "CAMM= AC" ? [Page 3], "svc-verifier", does svc acronym stand for something? (service an= d the Key Distribution Center ? ) Both svc and should be spelled out at fir= st use. [Page 6], Section 5, if an Application server does not recognize the AD-CAM= MAC container and the latter was not enclosed in the AD-IF-RELEVENT, should the Application server send an error or ignore ? Best Regards, Meral --- Meral Shirazipour Ericsson Research www.ericsson.com --_000_ABCAA4EF18F17B4FB619EA93DEF7939A330314A4eusaamb107erics_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. F= or background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at http://= wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.

 

Please resolve these comments along with any other L= ast Call comments you may receive.

 

Document: draft-ietf-kitten-cammac-00

Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour

Review Date: 2014-11-29

IETF LC End Date:  2014-12-09

IESG Telechat date: NA

 

 

Summary:

This draft is ready to be published as Standards Tra= ck RFC but I have some comments .

 

 

Minor issues:

 

Nits/editorial comments:

 

[Page 1], Abstract section, please remove the duplic= ation of the word abstract (first word of first sentence).

 

[Page 1], Abstract, suggestion: the actual motivatio= n should be briefly mentioned in the abstract. (e.g. that AD-KDC-ISSUED is = not sufficient in cases where ...).

 

[Page 3], "The svc-verifier element of the CAMM= AC", is svc newly introduced in this draft? If so it would be clearer = to mention it, e.g. "The new svc-verifier element of the CAMMAC"<= o:p>

 

[Page 3], same sentence as above, should it be "= ;AD-CAMMAC" instead of "CAMMAC" ?

 

[Page 3], "svc-verifier", does svc acronym= stand for something? (service and the Key Distribution Center ? ) Both svc= and should be spelled out at first use.

 

[Page 6], Section 5, if an Application server does n= ot recognize the AD-CAMMAC container and the latter was not enclosed in the= AD-IF-RELEVENT,

should the Application server send an error or ignor= e ?

 

 

Best Regards,

Meral

---

Meral Shirazipour

Ericsson

Research

www.ericsson.com

--_000_ABCAA4EF18F17B4FB619EA93DEF7939A330314A4eusaamb107erics_--