Hi, Peter,
Many thanks for the edit suggestions.
All were implemented, though:
- reference to RFC 6978 was moved after the word ’traversal’ for clarity
- master_key is capitalized in the same way as RFC5925, i.e., all
lower-case,
except when starting a bullet or sentence, where it has an initial
capital
An update should appear as -06 very shortly.
Joe
—
Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
www.strayalpha.com
> On Jan 30, 2022, at 2:25 PM, Peter Yee via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org>
> wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Peter Yee
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> 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
>
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-tcpm-ao-test-vectors-05
> Reviewer: Peter Yee
> Review Date: 2022-01-30
> IETF LC End Date: 2022-02-01
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>
> Summary: This document supplies test vectors for the MTI authentication
> algorithms used in the TCP Authentication Option. There are a few nits that
> should be corrected prior to publication. I'm not equipped to validate the
> test
> vectors themselves and did not attempt to do so. [Ready with nits.]
>
> Major issues: None
>
> Minor issues: None
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
> Page 2, Abstract: move this entire section before the "Status of this Memo"
> section, as required by RFC 7322, section 4.
>
> Page 4, first full paragraph: move "[RFC6978]" after "experimental extension"
> to avoid confusion.
>
> Page 10, section 5, 1st paragraph: add a period at the end of the sentence.
>
> Page 20, section 7, 1st sentence: add a period at the end of the sentence.
>
> Page 24, section 8.2: add a comma after "e.g.".
>
> Page 25, section 8.4, 2nd bullet item: change "to" to "in".
>
> Page 25, section 8.4, 3rd bullet item: change first "to" to "in".
>
> Page 25, section 9, 2nd paragraph: between the usage in section 3.1.1 and
> here,
> choose a consistent case for "master_key". I know, RFC 5926 (Master_Key) and
> RFC 5925 (master_key) are not consistent between themselves.
>
>
>
> --
> last-call mailing list
> last-c...@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
