Reviewer: Elwyn Davies 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-drip-rid-24 Reviewer: Elwyn Davies Review Date: 2022-05-10 IETF LC End Date: 2022-05-11 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: Ready with nits. I can't speak for the robustness of the security choices but the document is well written apart from a couple of pieces of deep jargon that may need explanation for more naive readers (notably multilateration - definitely a new one on me!) Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: Abstract/s1: The term 'self-asserting IPv6 address' is defined in Section 3 of the DRIP architecture. AFAICS 'self-asserting' is novel terminology, at least in this context, and I think it would be good to point to the architecture in the Abstract and to make it a little clearer that the term self-asserting (IPv6 address) is defined in the architecture - I missed that on first reading - as well as the idea of HHITs. s1, para 3: s/are updated, these/are updated, but these/ s3.2: Query: Is there are good reason for leaving the HIT/HHIT Suite ID value 4 unused? s3.2, s3.4.2, s8.2 and s8.4: After the definition of the EdDSA/cSHAKE128 value '(RECOMMENDED)' is appended. What or who is this recommendation aimed at? The users of the specification or IANA in relation to TBD3? The registry doesn't seem to have scope for recording this recommendation. If it is aimed at users, I think there should be words to this effect in s3.2 and it is probably not relevant in s3.4.2. s3.4.1.1 and s8.4: Similar question regarding '(RECOMMENDED)'. s3.4, para 2: s/As such the following updates HIP parameters./The subsections of this section document the required updates of HIP parameters./ s3.5.2.1, s3.5.3 and s3.5.4: I suggest adding a reference to the HITv2 archive where the prefix 2001:20::'28 is allocated (3 places). s4, para 2: 'The 2022 forthcoming ...' is not future proof. Suggest adding an RFC editor note to remove '2022 forthcoming' during editing. s5, para 1: s/does not intent/does not intend/ s5: The examples should be using the 'example' top level domain. s5, para 7: The phrase 'If we assume a prefix of 2001:30::/28,' is confusing. This prefix is the one the document is asking IANA to allocate for the HHITs so I suggest 'Using the allocated prefix for HHITs TBD6 [suggested value 2001:30::/28] (See Section 3.1)'. s8.1, last item: 'False?': A decision needs to be taken on what value should be here. s9.1, para 4: Is 'multilateration' sufficiently well understood to be used without explanation? App A, para 1: s/EU/The EU/ (2 places). -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
