Hi, >Thank you for the review. > >OK with all your suggestions. Thank You! :) Regards, Christer FWIW, you can track the changes to address your review at: https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=db0f6041-85afa3e8-db0f20da-86959e472243-5faeb82b3c90bf51&q=1&e=f43c50b7-ac0b-4eba-bc4b-55c0e7f8a2b9&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fboucadair%2Ffilter-control%2Fblob%2Fmaster%2FChrister'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
