Last Call Review of draft-leiba-rfc2119-update-01
review-leiba-rfc2119-update-01-secdir-lc-eastlake-2017-03-02-00

Request Review of draft-leiba-rfc2119-update
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 02)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2017-03-09
Requested 2017-02-09
Draft last updated 2017-03-02
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -01 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -01 by Joel Halpern (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -01 by Jürgen Schönwälder (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -01 by Donald Eastlake (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -02 by Robert Sparks
Assignment Reviewer Donald Eastlake
State Completed
Review review-leiba-rfc2119-update-01-secdir-lc-eastlake-2017-03-02
Reviewed rev. 01 (document currently at 02)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2017-03-02

Review
review-leiba-rfc2119-update-01-secdir-lc-eastlake-2017-03-02

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. Document
editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last
call comments.

This document merely clarifies the significance of capitalization of the
implementation requirement key words of RFC 2119. It's Security
Considerations section correctly states that there are none.

It is Ready except for a trivial editorial nit. In the sentence

   In many IETF documents several words are used to signify the
   requirements in the specification, when they are in all capitals as
   shown below.

I believe there should either be no comma or it should be re-ordered so
there are two commas as below.

   In many IETF documents several words, when they are in all
   capitals as shown below, are used to signify the requirements
   in the specification.

The automatic nits checker has two incorrect complaints that should be
ignored:

   1. that "NOT RECOMMENDED" occurs in the document but not in the
   documents RFC 2119 key words list, which is just because the document is
   talking about "NOT RECOMMENDED", and
   2. in contradiction, that the document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords
   but has RFC 2119 boilerplate, which is just because the document is talking
   about such boilerplate.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com