GenART LC review of draft-ietf-nea-pt-tls-05

["Roni Even" <[e-mail]>]

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For 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 Last Call comments you
may receive.

 

Document: draft-ietf-nea-pt-tls-05

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2012-6-4

IETF LC End Date: 2012-6-13

IESG Telechat date:

 

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standard track RFC.

 

Major issues:

 

Minor issues:

1.       In section 3.2 "Therefore, this specification requests the IANA
reserve a TCP port number for use with the PT-TLS protocol upon publication
of this specification as an Internet standard RFC." I think it will  be
better to have here the assigned port number and instruct the RFC editor to
put the correct value.

2.       In section 3.4.2.2 last paragraph you summarize the text from
section 3.8 while in the paragraph above you provide the reference. Why do
you need the last paragraph if 3.8 is referenced.

3.       In various places you refer to SMI 0 as IETF SMI number while
according to the table it is IANA SMI number.

4.       I assume that all implementations MUST support message type vendor
ID 0. Is this mentioned?

5.       In section 3.5 and 6.1 you propose a policy of "Expert Review with
Specification Required ". I think that according to RFC5226 expert review is
implied if you select a specification required policy.

6.       In section 3.6 on 9+ "Recipients of messages   of type 9 or higher
that do not support the PT-TLS Message Type Vendor ID and PT-TLS Message
Type of a received PT-TLS message MUST respond with a Type Not Supported
PT-TLS error code in a PT-TLS Error message." I think this is true only for
Message Type Vendor ID 0.

7.       In 3.7.1 for Max vers and prefs ver you say that they MUST be set
to 1. I think it will be more correct here to say SHOULD since you explain
afterwards that they may have other values.

8.       In section 3.7.2 "the recipient SHOULD send". Why not make it a
MUST here.

9.       In section 3.7.2 "The version selected MUST be within the Min Vers
to Max Vers inclusive range sent in the Version Request   Message" I was
expecting to see pref ver here.

10.   In section 3.8.3 " The SASL client authentication starts when the NEA
Server  enters the PT-TLS Negotiation phase and its policy indicates  that
an authentication of the NEA Client is necessary but was not performed
during the TLS handshake protocol " my read of  section 3.8 second paragraph
is that it can be done even if was done in the TLS handshake so the last
part of the sentence is not correct, if there is a policy you do it anyhow.
This comment is also for the third paragraph.

11.   In section 3.9 I noticed that you propose to send the entire original
message. Isn't it enough to send only the message identifier. This is based
on the last sentence of this section.

12.   Most of the text in section 6.1 repeats RFC5226 but in your words. Are
you trying to change some of RFC5226 text if not why write it in different
words?

 

 

 

Nits/editorial comments: