Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-kitten-cammac-00

From: Meral Shirazipour <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 08:43:20 +0000

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-kitten-cammac-00

Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour

Review Date: 2014-11-29

IETF LC End Date:  2014-12-09

IESG Telechat date: NA

Summary:

This draft is ready to be published as Standards Track RFC but I have some comments .

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

[Page 1], Abstract section, please remove the duplication of the word abstract (first word of first sentence).

[Page 1], Abstract, suggestion: the actual motivation should be briefly mentioned in the abstract. (e.g. that AD-KDC-ISSUED is not sufficient in cases where ...).

[Page 3], "The svc-verifier element of the CAMMAC", is svc newly introduced in this draft? If so it would be clearer to mention it, e.g. "The new svc-verifier element of the CAMMAC"

[Page 3], same sentence as above, should it be "AD-CAMMAC" instead of "CAMMAC" ?

[Page 3], "svc-verifier", does svc acronym stand for something? (service and the Key Distribution Center ? ) Both svc and should be spelled out at first use.

[Page 6], Section 5, if an Application server does not recognize the AD-CAMMAC container and the latter was not enclosed in the AD-IF-RELEVENT,

should the Application server send an error or ignore ?

Best Regards,

Meral

---

Meral Shirazipour

Ericsson

Research

www.ericsson.com