Last Call Review of draft-ietf-core-object-security-08
review-ietf-core-object-security-08-genart-lc-halpern-2018-02-21-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-core-object-security
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 16)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-03-02
Requested 2018-02-16
Draft last updated 2018-02-21
Completed reviews Opsdir Telechat review of -08 by √Čric Vyncke (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Joel Halpern (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -14 by Daniel Migault (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -13 by Joel Halpern (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -14 by Joel Halpern (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Joel Halpern
State Completed
Review review-ietf-core-object-security-08-genart-lc-halpern-2018-02-21
Reviewed rev. 08 (document currently at 16)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2018-02-21

Review
review-ietf-core-object-security-08-genart-lc-halpern-2018-02-21

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-core-object-security-08
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2018-02-21
IETF LC End Date: 2018-03-02
IESG Telechat date: 2018-03-08

Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC

Major issues: N/A

Minor issues: 
    In section 8.2 on verifying the request, step 5 says to "compose" the Additional Authentication Data.  I would have expected it to be "verify" the Additional Authentication Data.  I could imagine that the verification consists of composing what it should be, and then comparing with what is received.  But I do not see the comparison step.  is it implicit in some other step?  This occurs again in 8.4, so I presume I am simply missing something.  This may suggest some clarification could be useful.

Nits/editorial comments: N/A