Thanks Brian,
Your edits/comments look good to me.
Carlos
On Sat, Mar 11, 2023 at 9:15 PM Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 12-Mar-23 07:13, Carlos Bernardos via Datatracker wrote:
> Reviewer: Carlos Bernardos
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis. These
> comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors.
> Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they
> would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along
> with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on
> the INT Directorate, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/>.
>
> Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document as NO
> OBJECTION.
>
> The following issue is the only one I found with this document that I think
> SHOULD be corrected before publication:
>
> - In some OSes, as indicated in the doc, the interface name basically includes
> the MAC address of the interface. Because of this, if used as zone identifier,
> it would basically disclose the MAC address. I think some additional security
> considerations could be added on the impact that this might have.
Yes, that seems reasonable. Personally I would recommend o/s developers to use
a different method for naming zones, but that is perhaps a bit out of scope here.
We can simply note that it's bad practice.
>
> The following are minor issues (typos, misspelling, minor text improvements)
> with the document:
>
> - In section 1, I think the part "Two months later" can be removed.
I agree that "two months" is irrelevant but we did in theory have the chance to
pick a better symbol than "%" in RFC4007, if we had been wide awake.
>
> - While a reader of this document is probably familiar with what percent
> encoding is (RFC 3986), given that the document is quite verbose in explaining
> the stuff, it might be good to provide some short context about what percent
> encoding is.
I suggest making a specific reference to section 2.1 of RFC 3986, where it
is explained in a few sentences.
>
> - RFCs are cited many times in the document (nothing wrong about it, of
> course). Sometimes it is done by actually using a cross-reference to the RFC,
> while others it is not. I'd understand that only the first time the cross-ref
> is used, and then note, but the document does not seem to follow any pattern.
> I'd suggest revising this (probably the RFC Editor would do anyway).
Yes, I see that. When an RFC is mentioned repeatedly in a section, it's
probably enough to put the formal reference once.
> - "normalised" --> "normalized"
Quite a lot of transatlantic debate about that ;-) .
Thanks for the review,
Brian
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
