Document: draft-ietf-anima-brski-cloud
Title: BRSKI Cloud Registrar
Reviewer: Tim Wicinski
Review result: Ready with Issues
I've been asked by the DNS Directorate to do a follow-up review. I notice a
few things have not been addressed.
Issues:
Question: I asked this in my previous review, but it still needs to be
addresses:
This document says it "Updates 8995" yet there is no section in the document
with the updates to 8955. This is usually the case.
### 1.1 Terminology
You define Value Added Reseller (VAR), which is all well and good, but there
are more than one place where you say "value added reseller (VAR)" where VAR
should work, and you fail to capitalize the term in those places.
I may be overly OCD, but any reason why terms are not sorted alphabetically?
You define "Manufacturer", and explain the various nuances, but you don't
always capitalize the term in the document.
### Referencing
In Russ Housley's GENART review, he called out how you use different ways of
referencing sections of an RFC, using both "Section X of [RFC]" and "[RFC],
Section X". I feel the authors should pick one (the former) and be consistent.
Here is an example of how you reference sections of the BSKRI document:
"Section X of..."
This work is in support of [BRSKI], Section 2.7, which describes how
Registrar and the MASA is described by [BRSKI], Section 5.4.
and sign(VR-sign(N)) This is as described in [BRSKI], Section 3.
[BRSKI], Section 2.5.3, and the Pledge sends the CSR Attributes
According to [BRSKI], Section 2.7, the Pledge MUST use an Implicit
the considerations from [BRSKI], Section 10.7 apply.
TLS connection is required as explained in [BRSKI], Section 5.1.
in [BRSKI], Section 5.7.
"BRSKI, Section ...."
Provisional TLS: A mechanism defined in Section 5.1 of [BRSKI]
Section 5.9.2 of [BRSKI] specifies that the Pledge MUST send an EST
Provisional TLS procedures documented in Section 5.1 of [BRSKI], the
request message as outlined in Section 5.2 of [BRSKI], and sends the
TLS, as per Section 5.1 of [BRSKI].
MUST perform voucher verification as per Section 5.6.1 of [BRSKI].
Section 5.7 of [BRSKI] This telemetry returns allow for the Registrar
Step 10 is described in Section 5.9.4 of [BRSKI] as the Enrollment
infrastructure. Section 10.7 of [BRSKI] outlines additional
Sections 11.5 and 11.6 of [BRSKI] outline additional considerations
These are all spelling/grammar/nits
### 1. Introduction
s/are required which/are required, which/
s/provision products to be operate/provision products to operate/
### 2 Architecture
s/For use case one/For the first use case/
s/For use case two/For the second use case/
The two figures are very nice, but I would argue they should be placed after
each paragraph describing them, rather together. But I may be wrong.
### 2.1 Network Connectivity
s/accomplish this, from routable IPv4 or IPv6 addresses/accomplish this, from
using routable IPv4 or IPv6 addresses/
### 3.2. Cloud Registrar Processes Voucher Request Message
s/redirect to owner EST/redirect to Owner EST/
### 4.2. Bootstrap via Cloud Registrar and Owner EST Service
s/attempts to authentiate/attempts to authenticate/
s/In step 3, the the Cloud Registrar/In step 3, the Cloud Registrar/
### 8.2. Trust Anchors for Cloud Registrar
s/is described in in / is described in /
### 1.2. Target Use Cases
s/bootstraps it should be redirected/bootstraps, it should be redirected/
s/procedures define/procedures defined/
### 7.1. Captive Portals
s/all connections is also deployed./all connections are also deployed./
8. Security Considerations
s/operation of the MASA also apply to operation/operation of the MASA also
apply to the operation/
### 8.2. Trust Anchors for Cloud Registrar
s/need to include enough trust anchor/need to include enough trust anchors/
--
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
