Hi Christer, Thank you for the review. OK with all your suggestions. FWIW, you can track the changes to address your review at: https://github.com/boucadair/filter-control/blob/master/Christer's%20Review.pdf Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Christer Holmberg via Datatracker [mailto:noreply@xxxxxxxx] > Envoyé : samedi 6 juin 2020 11:27 > À : gen-art@xxxxxxxx > Cc : draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter-control.all@xxxxxxxx; last- > call@xxxxxxxx; dots@xxxxxxxx > Objet : Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dots-signal-filter- > control-04 > > Reviewer: Christer Holmberg > 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-dots-signal-filter-control-04 > Reviewer: Christer Holmberg > Review Date: 2020-06-06 > IETF LC End Date: 2020-06-15 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: The document is well written, and pretty much ready for > publication. I > do have a couple of minor editorial comments that I'd like the authors > to > address. > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: None > > Nits/editorial comments: > > Q1: Please expand DOTS on first occurence. > > --- > > Q2: The Security Considerations say: > > "This specification does not allow to create new filtering rules, > which is the responsibility of the DOTS data channel." > > Unless I missed it, I think it would be useful to state this also > earlier in > the document, e.g., in the Introduction. > > --- > > Q3: The Security Consideration say: > > "The security considerations discussed in > [I-D.ietf-dots-signal-channel] and [I-D.ietf-dots-data-channel] > need > to be taken into account." > > I think it is obvious that those security considerations need to be > taken into > account. I would suggest to re-phrase, and say something like: > > "The generic security considerations for DOTS signal channels are > defined in [I-D.ietf-dots-signal-channel]. The generic security > considerations for DOTS data channels are defined in > [I-D.ietf-dots-data-channel]. This Section defines the security > considerations that are specific to the DOTS extension defined > in this document." > > -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
