Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ice-trickle-16
review-ietf-ice-trickle-16-secdir-lc-mandelberg-2018-03-08-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ice-trickle
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 21)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2018-02-22
Requested 2018-02-08
Other Reviews Genart Last Call review of -16 by Roni Even (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -18 by Sarah Banks (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer David Mandelberg
Review review-ietf-ice-trickle-16-secdir-lc-mandelberg-2018-03-08
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/CM3JGkM1N8cUigejpXZ4nufhs7U
Reviewed rev. 16 (document currently at 21)
Review result Has Nits
Draft last updated 2018-03-08
Review completed: 2018-03-08

Review
review-ietf-ice-trickle-16-secdir-lc-mandelberg-2018-03-08

Hi,

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments just like any other last call comments.

The summary of the review is: ready with nits.

(nit) Section 2: What is a "ufrag pair"? Is it short for username 
fragment pair? I might have just missed it, but I don't see a definition 
in the referenced terminology.

(nit) Section 15: If I understand correctly, the signaling protocol also 
needs to guarantee that the end-of-candidates indication is not 
re-ordered with respect to any trickled candidates. Is that correct? Is 
it worth adding to the requirements?

-- 
Freelance cyber security consultant, software developer, and more
https://david.mandelberg.org/