Subject: [Dime] WGLC for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-rfc4005bis/?

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 14:16:21 +0700

I think that it's ready...

---

From: Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 12:09:32 +0200

I'll have the chairs' review on the document shortly and based on that start
moving the I-D forward or ask for "more work". Sorry for a slight lag..

- Jouni

---

From: Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 11:32:14 +0200

Hello,

I did a "chairs'" review of draft-ietf-dime-rfc4005bis-02. Here are my
comments that should be addressed. Most of them are purely editorial, some
might need a bit more fiddling around the I-D.

----

Around introduction Section 1
 o I would appreciate a short section describing the major changes between
   RFC4005 to RFC4005bis, and what was the reason for such change. In a
   similar fashion what RFC3588bis has done.

Section 1.1
 o The terminology/agronym list is not complete. e.g. DNIS, LCP, MTU,
   FQDN, PAC, LAC, DSCP, OLI, PRI, ISP, TLS are missing.

Section 1.3
 o RFC 3588 still mentioned and should be replaced with RFC3588bis
   reference.

Section 2.3
 o LCP is never expanded

Section 4.1.1
 o You might consider lifting this section up one level as it is alone
   under third level. Maybe just replacing Section 4.1 with Section 4.1.1
   content?
 o Similar note on Sections 4.4.10.6.1, 4.4.11.4.1
 o DSCP is not expanded on the first use.

Sections 4.2.1, 4.5, 4.6
 o These sections describe flag rules and encryption requirements for AVPs.
   Since the rest of the I-D references to RFC3588bis, which changed the use
   of AVP flag rule presentations (due to lack of end-to-end security
   specification), the RFC4005bis should follow that. This basically means
   removing MAY, SHLD NOT, Encr columns.

Section 4.3.1
 o References missing for IPsec and TLS.
 o TLS is not expanded on the first use.

Section 4.3.2
 o Expand ARAP on the first use.

Section 4.4.10.5.7
 o IPv6 addresses here should follow the RFC5156 documentation prefix.

Section 4.4.10.8.1
 o s/[ARAP]/(ARAP) [ARAP]

Section 4.4.11.5.1
 o Is it useful still to mention Vax & Alpha clusters?

Section 4.5.8
 o PAC and LAC are never expanded

Section 4.5.9
 o s/decidewitch/decide witch

Section 5
 o Could we just reference to RFC3588bis Section 10 on the definition
   of occurrence symbols? Just to keep them in one place.

Section 6
 o Since no new IANA considerations are really added this should be
   made clear in the introductory text.. just to make IANA folks life
   easier.

Section 6.5
 o This will cause a textual update in IANA registry policy, right?
   (semantically IETF review and older IETF consensus are equal).

Note that the I-D depends on the progress of the RFC3588bis due a normative
reference to the RFC3588bis..

- Jouni