Last Call Review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis-08
review-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis-08-genart-lc-korhonen-2015-12-21-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-12-28
Requested 2015-12-15
Authors Julien Laganier
Draft last updated 2015-12-21
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -08 by Jouni Korhonen (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -09 by Jouni Korhonen (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Tina Tsou (diff)
Intdir Early review of -07 by Sheng Jiang (diff)
Intdir Early review of -07 by Zhen Cao (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Stefan Winter (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Jouni Korhonen
State Completed
Review review-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis-08-genart-lc-korhonen-2015-12-21
Reviewed rev. 08 (document currently at 10)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2015-12-21

Review
review-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis-08-genart-lc-korhonen-2015-12-21

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on 


Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at 


<

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.






Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments 


you may receive.




Document: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis-08
Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
Review Date:2015–12-21
IETF LC End Date: 2015–12-28
IESG Telechat date:



Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a standard track RFC 


with small nits to be corrected.




Major issues: None.

Minor issues:



* The document seems to imply/assume that a DNS query has multiple 


question sections with different QTYPEs. At least the exmaples in lines 


226 and 278 make me read so. I wonder whether this is actually the 


intention. If not, reword/edit accordingly to avoid the confusion. This 


is to avoid known issues when QDCOUNT>1 or have a justification to do so.






* Section 5 and the assiciated HIP RR figure mostly mentions public key 


but not HI anymore. For the clarity I would suggest adding text that the 


public key is the HI as well.





Nits/editorial comments:



* IDnits complains on outdated reference: draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis-06 


but this can be corrected e.g., by the RFC Editor.




* Line 97: s/address\(es\)/addresses

* Line 162: s/obtain/obtains

* Line 163: s/initiate/initiates



* The document sometime uses "initiator" instead of "Initiator" e.g., in 


line 173. Suggest always using "Initiator" when meaning the HIP Initiator.




* API is never expanded.



* Sentence between lines 204-206 is somewhat hard to parse. Suggest 


rewording.






* Line 201: "HIP node (R)" probably means Responder. Suggest actually 


stating that.