On Fri, 21 Oct 2016, Robert Sparks wrote: > 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 > > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-kitten-rfc6112bis-02 > Reviewer: Robert Sparks > Review Date: 21 Oct 2016 > IETF LC End Date: 2 Nov 2016 > IESG Telechat date: Not yet scheduled on a telechat > > Summary: Ready with nits > > Nits/editorial comments: > > Shouldn't the IANA considerations instruct IANA to update the registries at > http://www.iana.org/assignments/kerberos-parameters/kerberos-parameters.xhtml > to update the three rows that currently point to 6112 to point to this > document instead (or at least in addition to 6112)? Yes, thanks for spotting that. > Micro-nit: There is a 2119 MUST carried forward from RFC6112 that could be > improved if the group is willing. "Care MUST be taken by the TGS to not > reveal". I would suggest "The TGS MUST NOT reveal...". If you need to further > highlight care, add a sentence that says "Implementers need to be particularly > careful when addressing this requirement." It is a very small nit - please > feel free to ignore it. That looks like a good change to me. Folks on kitten@, does anyone think otherwise? If we do not get any objections, I think we can include that in an RFC Editor Note. -Ben