Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-krb-wg-ananon-12.txt

From: Elwyn Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:27:38 +0100

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-krb-wg-ananon-12.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 2010-09-10
IETF LC End Date: 2010-09-10
ESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: Essentially ready for the IESG.  There are three vital client checks that need 
to be done but are not externally visible/testable as part of this protocol and so ought 
not to use RFC 2119 MUSTs.  However I note that failure of a client to perform these checks 
might be visible if the allegedly anonymous ticket was used as part of another exchange.
There are also a few nits.

Major Issues:

Minor Issues:
s4.3, para 3:  The 'MUST' is not enforceable:  certainly the client needs
to check it has got what it asked for but this isn't a protocol requirement. 
Maybe s/the client MUST check to make sure/it is essential for the client to check/

s6, para 4: As in s4.3, the first MUST is not enforceable.s/MUST/needs to/

s8, para 2:  same problem again.

Nits/editorial:
s4, para 1: s/an TGS/a TGS/

s4.1, para 6: It might be helpful to give a little more guidance about 
what might reveal the client's identity, or at least provide a pointer 
back to s3's list of what *can* be included. 

s4.1.1, para 1: The section title and usage elsewhere is 'Anonymous PKINIT':
should this para have s/anonymity/anonymous/?

s4.2, lat para: s/the TGS MAY omit the previous realm if the cross realm TGT is
   an anonymous one in order to hide/the TGS MAY omit the previous realm, if the cross realm TGT is
   an anonymous one, in order to hide/

s4.3, para 7: s/preformed/performed/

s6, para 3: s/insure/ensures/  [otherwise which Insurance Company should it use?]