Subject: [Gen-art] (full) review of draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-25.txt

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 15:40:12 +0200

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-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-25.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 2010-10-27
IETF LC End Date: 2010-10-25
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:
 Technical:

  - 13 page 147: I have a concern about 'TLS or IPsec handshake' because
   there is no such thing like 'IPsec handshake'. I suggest to ask IPsec
   people to check if this must be changed and if yes to get a better
   wording.

 Large scope editial:

  - Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments
   (ToC page 6, A. page 152 and in the text itself, for instance 1 page 7
    in Failover)

  - i.e. -> i.e., (for instance 2.1 page 23, 5.6 page 69)

 Editorial:

  - 1.1.3 page 12: please expand CER ad CEA at their first use.

  - 5.2 page 60: 'diameter.tls' -> 'diameter.tls.tcp'
   (cf 11.6 page 145)

  - 5.6 page 70: both ends moves -> both ends move

  - 6.6 page 84: a non-routable messages. -> a non-routable message.

  - 6.7.2 page 84: local state information of Diameter node ->
   local state information of the Diameter node

  - 6.7.4 page 85: by entities other Diameter entities. ->
   by other Diameter entities.

  - 6.11 page 86: a CER or CEA messages. -> a CER or CEA message.

  - 7 page 91: A command is received that is missing AVP(s) that
   (bad wording) -> A received command which is ...

  - 7.1.5 page 96: (bad wording)
   The Failed-AVP AVPs MUST be present which contains

  - 7.1.5 page 97: avp -> AVP (in code 5014 description)

  - 8 page 102: the applications itself -> the application itself

  - 8.1 page 103: sessions maintains -> sessions maintain

  - 8.1 pages 103 and 104: if it is possible I prefer:

Result-Code =
...

to

Result-Code
= ...

  - 9.3 page 128 (Split): maybe -> may be

  - 9.6 page 131: [Acct-]Multi-Session- Id -> [Acct-]Multi-Session-Id

  - Authors' page 158: ITU TS E.123 mandates a '+' before country code
   (i.e., +33 for France, +1 for USA and Canada, etc)

 Spelling:
   reauthentication -> re-authentication

Regards

[email-masked]

PS: I heavily used the IETF diff tool so bad wordings could be inherited
from RFC 3588.