These are pretty much just nits. Please address Tero's comments as well.
1. We charter WGs and I'm going to go with the thought that it will
succeed ;)
a: r/is chartered to/will
2. s1.1: Hub definition.
Verb choice:
r/there is no devices/there are no devices
3. s1.1.: Spoke definition:
Extra the:
r/in the a star/in a star
Need some ses:
r/it encrypt data coming from cleartext device
/it encrypts data coming from cleartext devices
4. s2: Use administrative domain in s1 but organization here. Is
consistency needed?
Not sure what you'd think about this, but what do you think about not
using lowercase 2119 words in any of the s2 subsections? Reviewers
should be able to piece together that this is the use case section and
not the requirements section and therefore there shouldn't be any 2119
language here - but they don't always. To be clear, I'm not hard over
on this.
r/must use/need
r/must/need to
r/should/ought to
5. s2.1:
Can you remove direct from "direct, point-to-point"? Isn't direct in
the definition?
Shouldn't "hub and spoke topology" be "star topology"? "hub and spoke
topology" isn't defined in s1.1.
I think you might need an "a" to match the previous sentence:
r/Such use case/Such a use case ?
r/expose them/expose themselves
6. s2.2:
An extra the:
r/for the voice and other/for voice and other
Nit picking here but I think this is clearer:
r/endpoints are administrated by separate management domains
/endpoints are in different administrative domains
Please expand: L3VPNs and GRE.
7. s4.1:
r/firewall, NAT box/firewalls, NAT boxes
8. Req 10 + 11: Is the requirement driver under 11 for both 10 and 11?
If so then it should be "These requirements". If you're going to do
this couldn't you just group 10-14 as they're the same driver for all 5?
Or, is the driver under 10 missing?
9 s5: To match the title:
r/Problem state and requirement/problem statement and requirements
10. General: Sometimes it's ADVPN and other times it's AD VPN.
11. Allied and federated environments should be defined in the
terminology section or at least introduced earlier in the draft.
spt
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
