Hello folks, I've reviewed this document as part of the transport area directorate's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors for their information and to allow them to address any issues raised. The authors should consider this review together with any other last-call comments they receive. Please always CC tsv-dir@xxxxxxxx if you reply to or forward this review. Transport Issues: I had some difficulties to grasp the objective of the document, however, I believe it's This document does not contain protocol specifications. Instead, it defines the areas where protocol specification work is needed and sets a direction, a set of requirements, and a relative priority for addressing that specification work. as it is stated in Section 1.3. Along with this context, I can understand section 2 and 3 are written for this purpose. Also, I think there is no specific transport layer concern in this document since there's no detailed discussion for protocol specs. However, if my presumption on the objective of the document is right, I think the title of this draft might not be appropriate. It would be something like "The Goal and Requirements for Cryptographic Authentication of Routing Protocols' Transports" or "The Requirements for Cryptographic Authentication of Routing Protocols' Transports". Because there is not threat analysis in the document. Also, abstract will need to be updated. Other minor comments: As stated above, I have some difficulties to read this document. I think this is likely because I'm not an expected audience for the document. However, if you think some of the following points are also reasonable for some expected audience, please consider updating. 1: I prefer that the objective of the draft is articulated at the beginning of the document. It will be very helpful to read the rest of the document. 2: I think it would be better to separate the introduction of this draft and KARP project. For example, it is a bit confusing for me to understand the focus of this draft since it is mixed with the focus of the KARP in Section 1.3. I think Section 1.1, 1.2 and 1.7 can be put in the introduction of this draft and 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6 can be put in another section which describes the overview of KARP. 3: I think it depends on the objective of the draft, but I feel some texts in Section 1 is not necessary for this draft. For example, I'm not very sure the audience of this doc need to read Section 1.4. Also, Section 1.5 seems to be too long. There are also many mentions about roadmap in this draft, but I'm not very sure these are necessary since this is not a roadmap document. (Hence, I don't understand the meaning of "this roadmap document". ) 4: Section 3 only describes the requirement for Phase 1. Will be there another document for Phase 2 or we don't need it? 5: 24 requirements seems to be too many to check easily. I think it would be better to categorize them in some ways. (priority? protocols? approach?) Thanks, -- Yoshifumi Nishida nishida@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf