Hi Tom, could you please address Meral's review below?
Thanks, Gonzalo On 20/08/2016 6:33 AM, Meral Shirazipour wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the > IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any > other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq> . > > > > > > Document: draft-ietf-hip-multihoming-10 > > Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour > > Review Date: 2016-08-19 > > IETF LC End Date: 2016-08-25 > > IESG Telechat date: NA > > > > > > Summary: > > This draft is ready to be published as Standards Track RFC, but I have > some comments (nits). > > > > Major issues: > > > > Minor issues: > > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > -[Page 4], "ESP transform [RFC7402]"--typo?-->"ESP transport [RFC7402]" > > -[Page 4], please spell out SPI at first use: "Security Parameter Index > (SPI)" > > -[Page 5], "elements of procedure,"--->"elements of the procedure." > > -[Page 6], "in R1, I2, or R2 packets"..., suggestion to add ref. to > RFC7401 here. > > -[Page 6], "(ESP SAs may have an anti-replay window sensitive to > reordering)", suggestion to add ref. to RFC4303 here. > > -[Page 8], "ACTIVE statte"--typo-->"ACTIVE state" > > -[Page 13], "that a host send"--->"that a host sends" > > -[Page 16], ". Mark all addresses....", not clear who marks? the host?. > It would be better to clarify the sentence. > > -[Page 18], "capabilities for mobility also carry over to mobility", did > we mean to multihoming? > > -[Page 18], "threats discussed in [RFC4218] involves"--no s-->"threats > discussed in [RFC4218] involve" > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > Meral > > --- > > Meral Shirazipour > > Ericsson > > Research > > www.ericsson.com > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
