[MLS] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-mls-architecture-10: (with COMMENT)

[Lars Eggert via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mls-architecture-10: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mls-architecture/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-mls-architecture-10

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Meral Shirazipour for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/M8UxyeH75I3l0lYx6DKtgipwPF0).

Thanks for putting together a very readable MLS overview!

## Comments

### Inclusive language

Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more
guidance:

 * Terms `she` and `he`; alternatives might be `they`, `them`, `their`

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Outdated references

Document references `draft-ietf-mls-protocol-16`, but `-17` is the latest
available revision.

### URLs

These URLs in the document did not return content:

 * https://hal.laas.fr/INRIA/hal-02425229/document

### Grammar/style

#### Section 2.1, paragraph 3
```
tions rely on users verifying each others' key fingerprints for authenticati
                                   ^^^^^^^
```
Did you mean "other's"?

#### Section 4.2, paragraph 1
```
es; this can be detected only by out of band comparison (e.g., confirming tha
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Did you mean "out-of-band"?

#### Section 5.1, paragraph 7
```
he shared cryptographic material. However every service/infrastructure has c
                                  ^^^^^^^
```
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "However".

#### Section 5.4, paragraph 8
```
ly not allowed at the protocol level but applications can elect to provide s
                                    ^^^^
```
Use a comma before "but" if it connects two independent clauses (unless they
are closely connected and short).

#### Section 6, paragraph 54
```
 layer. 7.1.3. DoS protection In general we do not consider Denial of Servic
                                 ^^^^^^^
```
A comma is probably missing here.

#### Section 7.1.3, paragraph 1
```
ted traffic history combined with an access to all current keying material on
                                  ^^^^^^^^^
```
Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply
"access".

#### Section 7.1.3, paragraph 3
```
state is compromised at some time t1 but the group member subsequently perfo
                                    ^^^^
```
Use a comma before "but" if it connects two independent clauses (unless they
are closely connected and short).

#### Section 7.2.1, paragraph 5
```
, the application would have to be provide it through some other mechanism.
                                   ^^^^^^^
```
Consider using either the past participle "provided" or the present participle
"providing" here.

#### Section 7.2.3, paragraph 1
```
thin the epoch of the compromise. However the MLS protocol does not provide
                                  ^^^^^^^
```
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "However".

#### Section 7.3.1, paragraph 1
```
he attacker has compromised a client but the client signature keys are prote
                                    ^^^^
```
Use a comma before "but" if it connects two independent clauses (unless they
are closely connected and short).

#### Section 7.3.3, paragraph 2
```
 this is the case for signature keys but similar concern exists for the encr
                                    ^^^^
```
Use a comma before "but" if it connects two independent clauses (unless they
are closely connected and short).

#### Section 7.4.2.1, paragraph 7
```
on client compromise, which helps recovering security faster in various case
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^
```
The verb "helps" is used with an infinitive.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool