Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-RTP LC review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis-08

From: Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 12:41:51 -0800

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-hip-rfc5205-bis-08
Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
Review Date:2015–12-21
IETF LC End Date: 2015–12-28
IESG Telechat date:

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a standard track RFC 
with small nits to be corrected.

Major issues: None.

Minor issues:

* The document seems to imply/assume that a DNS query has multiple 
question sections with different QTYPEs. At least the exmaples in lines 
226 and 278 make me read so. I wonder whether this is actually the 
intention. If not, reword/edit accordingly to avoid the confusion. This 
is to avoid known issues when QDCOUNT>1 or have a justification to do so.

* Section 5 and the assiciated HIP RR figure mostly mentions public key 
but not HI anymore. For the clarity I would suggest adding text that the 
public key is the HI as well.

Nits/editorial comments:

* IDnits complains on outdated reference: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis-06 
but this can be corrected e.g., by the RFC Editor.

* Line 97: s/address\(es\)/addresses

* Line 162: s/obtain/obtains

* Line 163: s/initiate/initiates

* The document sometime uses "initiator" instead of "Initiator" e.g., in 
line 173. Suggest always using "Initiator" when meaning the HIP Initiator.

* API is never expanded.

* Sentence between lines 204-206 is somewhat hard to parse. Suggest 
rewording.

* Line 201: "HIP node (R)" probably means Responder. Suggest actually 
stating that.