Hello Joe, First, thank you for your helpful review. On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Joe Clarke <jclarke@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Reviewer: Joe Clarke > Review result: Has Nits > > I have been requested to review draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt for the ops > directorate. This document describes the effects of pervasive encryption on > operators. The document sets out a rather comprehensive list of network data > (in motion and at rest) use cases and explains how encryption will effect each > of them. Overall, I feel this document is ready. As someone that has > supported networks from a troubleshooting perspective for years, I was > especially pleased with the numerous callouts to troubleshooting impacts as > well as deficiencies in application logging. > > To that end, it might be useful to specifically point out where vendors have a > role to fill in some of these areas to allow for transit encryption while > providing the necessary hooks for operators to manage and troubleshoot their > network. Specifically, in many of the troubleshooting scenarios, operators > won't be able to provide truly useful tools to their end users unless the > vendors provide the right level of visibility. Do you have suggested text that we could add to address this gap from your experience? > > On to some nits. > > In section 1.1 you use "end user's" where I think you mean "end users'". > > === > > Section 2. Today, Snowden is fairly well-known. But as this document lives, > maybe the specifics of what he's done may get fuzzy. Perhaps this could do > with a reference. > > === > > Sections 5.3 and 6.2: you reference the abbreviation SNI before formally > defining it. It's more obvious in Section 6.2. > Thanks for catching the nits, we will address them. Best regards, Kathleen > -- Best regards, Kathleen