Re: [IPsec] AD review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-ad-vpn-problem

[Vishwas Manral <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sean,

I realized I missed this email. I will work on this draft this week and
next.

Thanks,
Vishwas
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:17 AM, Sean Turner <[e-mail]> wrote:

> These are pretty much just nits.  Please address Tero's comments as well.
>
> 1. We charter WGs and I'm going to go with the thought that it will
> succeed ;)
>
> a: r/is chartered to/will
>
> 2. s1.1: Hub definition.
>
> Verb choice:
>
> r/there is no devices/there are no devices
>
> 3. s1.1.: Spoke definition:
>
> Extra the:
>
> r/in the a star/in a star
>
> Need some ses:
>
> r/it encrypt data coming from cleartext device
>  /it encrypts data coming from cleartext devices
>
> 4. s2: Use administrative domain in s1 but organization here.  Is
> consistency needed?
>
> Not sure what you'd think about this, but what do you think about not
> using lowercase 2119 words in any of the s2 subsections?  Reviewers should
> be able to piece together that this is the use case section and not the
> requirements section and therefore there shouldn't be any 2119 language
> here - but they don't always.  To be clear, I'm not hard over on this.
>
> r/must use/need
> r/must/need to
> r/should/ought to
>
> 5. s2.1:
>
> Can you remove direct from "direct, point-to-point"?  Isn't direct in the
> definition?
>
> Shouldn't "hub and spoke topology" be "star topology"?  "hub and spoke
> topology" isn't defined in s1.1.
>
> I think you might need an "a" to match the previous sentence:
>
> r/Such use case/Such a use case ?
>
> r/expose them/expose themselves
>
> 6. s2.2:
>
> An extra the:
>
> r/for the voice and other/for voice and other
>
> Nit picking here but I think this is clearer:
>
> r/endpoints are administrated by separate management domains
>  /endpoints are in different administrative domains
>
> Please expand: L3VPNs and GRE.
>
> 7. s4.1:
>
> r/firewall, NAT box/firewalls, NAT boxes
>
> 8. Req 10 + 11: Is the requirement driver under 11 for both 10 and 11? If
> so then it should be "These requirements".  If you're going to do this
> couldn't you just group 10-14 as they're the same driver for all 5? Or, is
> the driver under 10 missing?
>
> 9 s5: To match the title:
>
> r/Problem state and requirement/problem statement and requirements
>
> 10. General: Sometimes it's ADVPN and other times it's AD VPN.
>
> 11. Allied and federated environments should be defined in the terminology
> section or at least introduced earlier in the draft.
>
> spt
> ______________________________**_________________
> IPsec mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/ipsec<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>
>