Document: draft-ietf-hip-bone-06
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2010-06-11
IETF LC End Date: 2010-06-11
IESG Telechat date: 2010-06-17

Summary: Ready for publication as an experimental RFC. I have a few 
minor editorial comments that I think should be considered in any 
remaining edits, but should not block publication.

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:

-- General:

 IDNITS turns up some outdated references and boilerplate questions. Please 
check.

-- Section 1, paragraph 2: "HIP BONE,"

   Please expand on first mention

-- Section 1, last paragraph

   I'm not sure we can assume the reader knows what you mean by 
"customary sections."

-- 3.2.2, para 3, last sentence: "Given that each operation requires the 
attacker to generate a new key pair, the attack is completely impractical"

It would be better to avoid hyperbole when describing the practicality of an 
attack. Perhaps something to the effect of "impractical with current 
technology and techniques"?

-- 3.4, 2nd paragraph, last sentence: "with such straightforward approach."
   
Missing article

-- 5.1, paragraph 2: "The enrollment server of an overlay that were to 
use HITs derived from public keys as Node IDs could just authorize users 
to use the public keys and HITs associated to their nodes."
   
I have trouble parsing the first part of the sentence, around "that were 
to use".

-- 5.3, paragraph 1:"Nodes in an overlay need to establish connection with 
other nodes"
  
Connections (singular/plural mismatch)

-- 5.5, paragraph before last bullet list: "It is assumed that areas not 
covered by a particular HIP BONE instance specification are specified by the 
peer protocol or elsewhere."
   
This seems more a requirement than an assumption.

-- 6.1:"[ TBD by IANA; 980 ]"
   
Does this mean IANA has already picked the number? Or is it a recommended 
number? (Pattern repeats for other registrations)