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-sacm-requirements-15.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20170607
IETF LC End Date: 20170605
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Almost Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: ambiguous uses of lowercase keywords:
RFC 2119 is very ambiguous about the required case of keywords so even
of 1.1 includes a "uppercase keyword only" statement I strongly recommend
to avoid use of lowercase keywords in numbered requirements (and to
add a statement about this in 1.1). Note there are a few "required" and
at least a "shall". In a few case this should avoid further questions
about whether to promote a lower case verb (e.g., a may) to a keyword.

Nits/editorial comments: 
 - ToC page 2 and 3 page 15: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments

 - 1 page 2: expand the SACM abbrev at the first use in the boday

 - 2.1 page 5 G-002: first example of a lowercase keyword (a must)
  which is both ambiguous and a candidate to uppercase (note as
  there is no keywords in G-002 it is even a strong candidate).

 - 2.1 page 5 G-003: ambiguous "must" in "Scalability must be addressed..."
  (I propose to replace it by "has to")

  I counted 30 ambiguous keywords in numbered requirements
  (I can give details if you need)

 - 2.1 page 6 (G-006 & G-009 (twice)), 2.3 page 9 (IM-006), 2.6 page 14
  (T-004):  i.e. -> i.e.,

 - 2.2 page 8 (ARCH-007), 2.4 pages 10 (DM-002) and 11 (DM-004, DM-010
  and DM-011), 2,5 page 13 (OP-007 (twice)), 2.6 page 14 (T-003 and T-005),
  5.2 page 17:  e.g. -> e.g.,

 - 2.6 page 14 (proposal): hyperText -> hypertext
  BTW HTTP is a well known abbrev so you can simply leave HTTP
  (cf http://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt)

 - 5 pages 15-17: lowercase keywords (so not to be interpreted as keywords)
  are fine here as there are not in numbered requirements.

 - 5.2 page 17: unecessary -> unnecessary

 - 7.1 page 18: draft-ietf-sacm-terminology is (intented to be)
  informational so to have it as a normative reference is questionable.
  Same for RFC 5209 and RFC 7632. Note according to the RFC 7322 the
  rule for normative vs informative references is flexible so you can
  argue these documents bring important or even critical information.

 - Addresses page 10: (more for the RFC Editor) please try to move the
  title to the next page.

Regards

Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr