[OPSAWG] AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-sdi-07

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Thank you for this work.  I found this document informative and both easy to read and understand.  I have a one question on this document and a few nits listed below.

My main question concerns this sentence in section 3.1: "[I-D.gutmann-scep] is one method which vendors may want to strongly consider."

It looks like the IESG comments associated with I-D.gutmann-scep suggests that this is being documented for historical reasons and probably is no longer recommended practice.  Hence, I was wondering whether it is appropriate to recommend or even reference it?


Nits:
Some inconsistency on how the device identifier is referred to.  Sometimes it is "unique identifier" sometimes "unique device identifier", perhaps try and unify on a single term?

Introduction:
   I prefer "and/or" to "and / or" that turns up twice.

Section 2.1:
"and Acme publishes it on their keyserver" => "and acme publishes the public key on their keyserver"?

Section 3.1:
  "may will" => "may"?

Section 3.2:
"Note that the certificate publication server MUST only accept certificates or keys from the vendor's manufacturing facilities." => This text, or very similar appears in both section 3.2 and 3.1.

Section 4.3,
  "contact" => "contacts",
  "It able," => "If able,"
  "If this fails" => It could potentially be more clear as to what "it" refers to here, although the diagram below does make it clear.
   In diagram "give up go home" => "give up, go home"

"keylenghts" => "key lengths"
"isn't" => "is not"?

Regards,
Rob