Last Call Review of draft-ietf-stir-passport-divert-07
review-ietf-stir-passport-divert-07-genart-lc-resnick-2020-01-09-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-stir-passport-divert
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2019-12-02
Requested 2019-11-18
Authors Jon Peterson
Draft last updated 2020-01-09
Completed reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -07 by Linda Dunbar
Genart Last Call review of -07 by Pete Resnick
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Phillip Hallam-Baker
Assignment Reviewer Pete Resnick
State Completed
Review review-ietf-stir-passport-divert-07-genart-lc-resnick-2020-01-09
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/7_icYSKUebpw3RRkh-pIA0CYr_Q
Reviewed rev. 07
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2020-01-09

Review
review-ietf-stir-passport-divert-07-genart-lc-resnick-2020-01-09

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>.

Note that while this is labeled a Last Call review, this review comes well after the Last Call completed. However, the author and AD felt it would be useful anyway since the document has not yet been updated for Last Call comments.

Document: draft-ietf-stir-passport-divert-07
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review Date: 2020-01-09
IETF LC End Date: 2019-12-02
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Ready with Nits

While I found the document (and particularly section 4) very technically dense, I think the detail will help implementers tremendously. Nothing other than a few editorial issues.

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:

Section 3, paragraph 1:

                                                               Note that
   a new PASSporT is only necessary when the canonical form of the
   "dest" identifier (per the canonicalization procedures in [RFC8224]
   Section 8) changes due to this retargeting.  If the canonical form of
   the "dest" identifiier is not changed during retargeting, then a new
   PASSporT with a "div" claim MUST NOT be produced.
   
Seems to me that these two sentences should be in their own paragraph. It took me a second to figure out that the following sentence was not related to these.

Section 4:

   ...Other using protocols of PASSporT

Don't you mean "Other protocols using PASSporT"?

Section 4.2, paragraph 2:

I think you mean "necessarily", not "necessary"