Dear Paul, I just realized my original email was not complete sent so, here the complete one:
Thank you for the review and your overall impression on the document. I made some inline comments to your findings. We will address them in the next version of the document. An intermediate version with incorporated updates is available on the ANIMA git (https://github.com/anima-wg/anima-brski-prm) I made some further comments inline > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzi...@alum.mit.edu> > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 6:08 PM > To: draft-ietf-anima-brski-prm....@ietf.org; an...@ietf.org > Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>; last-c...@ietf.org > Subject: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-anima-brski-prm-17 > > 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. > > Document: draft-ietf-anima-brski-prm-17 > Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat > Review Date: 2025-01-27 > IETF LC End Date: 2025-01-30 > IESG Telechat date: ? > > Summary: > > This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be > fixed > before publication. > > This was this reviewer's first introduction to anima. As a result, this > review is limited > to document form, not technical details. > > It is a very well written document. It is however forbiddingly long and > intimidating > to read. It has a very distinct repetitive structure. (Many twisty little > passages, all > different, but very similar.) It seems like it could perhaps be represented > in a more > concise way that would be easier to read. But I don't have a specific > suggestion. [stf] We tried to follow the same pattern for describing the protocol interaction. This may make it longer, but we thought it would be beneficial for implementors. > > ISSUES: 0 > NITS: 3 > > 1) NIT: Non-RFC2606-compliant FQDN > > Section 6.1.2 (Discovery of the Pledge) uses an FQDN, > "_brski-pledge._tcp.local", > that triggers an IdNits non-RFC2606-compliant FQDN warning. This is perhaps > mitigated somewhat by being a local FQDN. > > I don't have a specific recommendation whether or not to change this. [stf] We followed the BRSKI (RFC 8995) approach with the definition of the service names. In addition, we stated them as depend on local device information. > > 2) NIT: Language > > In the first paragraph of Section 8 (Logging), I suggest minor syntax tweaks > in the > first paragraph: > > s/Recommend key events for logging comprise/Recommended key events for > logging comprise:/ [stf] Thanks. Incorporated. It better fits to the other occurrences in the same section. > > 3) NIT: Stale References > > There are three outdated references to related anima documents. I trust these > will > be dealt with in due course. [stf] Yes, the references are updated automatically. The next version will use the current version information of the referenced drafts. Best regards Steffen _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list -- gen-art@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to gen-art-le...@ietf.org
