Last Call Review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-06

Request Review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-12-28
Requested 2015-12-15
Authors Tobias Heer, Samu Varjonen
Draft last updated 2016-01-21
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -06 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -08 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Sean Turner (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -08 by Sean Turner (diff)
Intdir Early review of -05 by Jouni Korhonen (diff)
Intdir Early review of -05 by Pascal Thubert (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Qin Wu (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Dan Romascanu
State Completed
Review review-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-06-genart-lc-romascanu-2016-01-21
Reviewed rev. 06 (document currently at 09)
Review result On the Right Track
Review completed: 2016-01-21


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





Document: draft-ietf-hip-rfc6253-bis-06

Reviewer: Dan Romascanu

Review Date: 1/7/2016

IETF LC End Date: 12/28/2015

IESG Telechat date: 


Summary: On the right track


The document is well structured, but there are a number of issues that must be fixed before it is approved by the IESG.


Major issues:




The Type number values mentioned in Section 2 (after the certificate types table) refer to the values in RFC 6253 (that go to 8) and not in the values in this document.



The IANA Considerations section needs in my opinion to be re-written. RFC 6263 was an Experimental RFC, this document has an Intended Status of Standards Track, it cannot just refer to the content of the document
 that it is obsoleting. 



A new Certificate type registry needs to be defined in my opinion. Older values in the registry were 0 to 8, this document should not use values of 0 to 4 in the same registry while some of the values have different


Minor issues:




The front page does not provide the initials of the first name of the authors. This may seem a nit, but there may be tools that are used with processing the initials of the authors name.



Inconsistent use of CERT (the parameter in RFC 7401) and Cert (as in Cert group, Cert count, etc.). Any special reason not to write consistently CERT every place?



I am missing a section that would remain in the document (unlike Appendix B which I suspect will be taken out at publication) and that shortly lists the changes from RFC 6253 and their motivation.


Nits/editorial comments: