Re: [secdir] SECDIR Re-Reveiw of draft-ietf-hip-dex

[Robert Moskowitz <[e-mail]>]

With Miika's help, I have fixed this in -21.

Thank you.

On 7/5/20 10:30 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have checked the current -20 version of this draft against my 
> previous review below. All my comments are resolved except that I 
> think the plural of SHOULD is SHOULDs, not SHOULDS, and there are 
> still occurrences of SHOULDS in Appendix B of the draft.
>
> Thanks,
> Donald
> ===============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
>  2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: *Donald Eastlake* <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Date: Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 11:18 PM
> Subject: SECDIR Reveiw of draft-ietf-hip-dex-11
> To: <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>, secdir <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>
> I have reviewed this document as (a very late) part of the security
> directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being
> processed by the IESG.
>
> The summary of the review is Ready with Nits.
>
> Sorry to get this review in so late but, while approved by the IESG,
> the draft is still in revised draft needed state so this may do some
> good. On the security front, although the draft is pretty complex and
> I am not that familiar with HIP, I did not see any significant
> security issues that were not already called out in the draft. So I
> concentrated on possible editorial issues.
>
> Editorial:
>
> Section 1.1, 3rd paragraph, page 5. Delete "However," a the beginning
> of the 2nd sentence. It doesn't make sense.
>
> Section 2.3, Definitions should be in alphabetic order.
>
> Section 2.3: It seems to me that people who are puzzled about what
> something means are most likely to be puzzled by the acronym. So I
> would put the acronym first, where there is an acronym or acronym-like
> term to use, then the expansion in parenthesis or in the body of the
> definition. This done for a couple of entries like CMAC and CKDF but
> most are the other way.
>
> Section 3 last paragraph and Section 12.10 5th bullet: "to use" -> 
> "use of"
>
> I think OGA  and KEYMAT should be in the Definitions list and KEYMAT,
> which I assume just is short for "keying material", should be expanded
> on first use in Section 6.3. Alternatively, you could just replace all
> occurrences of KEYMAT with "Keying Material".
>
> Section 5.3.2, page 23. The first sentence of the first paragraph
> starting on that page has problems. Maybe "chose" should be "choses"
> but I'm not sure:
>   "The DH_GROUP_LIST parameter contains the Responder's order of
>    preference based on which the Responder chose the ECDH key contained
>    in the HOST_ID parameter (see below)."
>
> Appendix A, first sentence, "allows to identify" -> "allows identifying"
>
> Appendix B, "IEDG" -> "IESG"
>
> Appendix B, around the middle of page 51, right after the line
> beginning with "Section 6," there are three line with a blank line
> before and after. I found this confusing at first. I suggest those
> three line also be indented.
>
> Appendix B, page 52, "SHOUDS" -> "SHOUDs"
>
> Thanks,
> Donald
> ===============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
>  2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>

-- 
Standard Robert Moskowitz
Owner
HTT Consulting
C:248-219-2059
F:248-968-2824
E:[e-mail]

There's no limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn't matter who 
gets the credit