Last Call Review of draft-ietf-clue-protocol-17
review-ietf-clue-protocol-17-genart-lc-dupont-2018-10-18-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-clue-protocol
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 19)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-10-17
Requested 2018-10-03
Authors Roberta Presta, Simon Romano
Draft last updated 2018-10-18
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -17 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -17 by Aanchal Malhotra (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -17 by Zitao Wang (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Francis Dupont
State Completed
Review review-ietf-clue-protocol-17-genart-lc-dupont-2018-10-18
Reviewed rev. 17 (document currently at 19)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2018-10-18

Review
review-ietf-clue-protocol-17-genart-lc-dupont-2018-10-18

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

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-clue-protocol-17.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20181017
IETF LC End Date: 20181017
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments: 
 I have a problem with the CLUE abbrev itself (which BTW is not in the
RFC Editor abbrev list
https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt):
in theory the abbrev should be introduced at its first use in the Abstract
and in the body (so 1 introduction) but this seems to be overkilling
and not really solving the issue so I have a better proposal: ask
the RFC Editor if it is not possible to add the CLUE abbrev in the
list as a well known one.

 - Abstract page 1: you use SCTP over DTLS so a transport over another
 transport. At the first view it looks strange but in fact it should be
 the simplest solution to add security to SCTP so I have no concern about
 this.

 - 4 page 5 twice: version numbers are qualified as "single digit" which
 does not match the syntax 5 figure 1 page 8 nor examples: please remove
 these.

 - 5 page 8: the version number syntax. BTW it allows a minor version
 to begin by a 0 followed by other digits which perhaps is not what
 you want.

 - 5 page 8: same comment about examples: a priori 1.01 is legal and
  it is not clear if it is the same than 1.1 ?

 - 5 page 8 (before the previous one): procotol -> protocol

 - 5.1 page 11: IMHO in "<supportedVersion> is provided ..."
  it shoild be <supportedVersions>.

 - 5.4 page 13: I noted you use the UK spelling for the type name
 (Acknowledgement vs. Acknowledgment).

 - 5.7 page 17 figure 9 and 12.4.2 page 65:
 Please remove the final dot in " Low-level request error."

 - 11 page 60: defence -> defense (UK vs US English)

 - 12.4.1 page 64: estabilsh -> establish

 - 12.4.2 page 65: Conficting -> Conflicting
 
Regards

Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr