Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-mile-xmpp-grid-09

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2019 04:30:54 -0800

Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
Review result: Ready with Issues

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>.

Document: draft-ietf-mile-xmpp-grid-09
Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
Review Date: 2019-01-04
IETF LC End Date: 2019-01-14
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: The document is well written, easy to read, and technically I have no
issues. However, as shown below, I do have some questions for clarifications.

Major issues: None

Minor issues:

Q1: There is no explanation of what kind of security-related information is
distributed. What kind of security? I assume it is some kind of application
security, and not XMPP security.

Q2: Is there a reason why XMPP-Grid is only defined for security-related
information? Isn’t XMPP-Grid a way of distributing ANY type on information in a
secure manner?

Q3: It is not clear to me what XMPP-Grid provides that “normal” secure XMPP
doesn’t. Is XMPP-Grid only an architecture, using standard XMPP components? If
so, I think that should be made more clear.

Q4: While section 8 does reference RFC 6120 for the usage of TLS, I can’t find
any references to other security considerations in RFC 6120. Is everything in
section 8 XMPP-Grid specific?

Q5: Section 4 talks about a “typical” workflow. I assume that means there could
be others?

Nits/editorial comments:

Q6: The document talks about using XMPP-Grid for distributing
“security-relevant”/”security-related” information. I suggest using consistent
terminology.