Subject: [Dime] Review of draft-ietf-dime-e2e-sec-req-02

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 16:36:13 -0400

I support the forwarding of this document to the IESG subject to the 
following comments.

Tom Taylor

Substantive Comment:

Req. 1: the definition of crypto-agility is unnecessary, since the term 
is not used in the rest of the document. I suggest rephrasing the first 
sentence as follows:

NEW

Solutions MUST be able to evolve to adapt to evolving cryptographic 
algorithms and security requirements.

Nits:

Sec. 1 second paragraph, second sentence: s/lead/led/

Sec. 3 first line: s/follow/following/

Sec. 4, paragraph below Fig. 4, second-last line:
  s/number/numbers/

Sec. 4, paragraph below Fig. 5, last sentence:
  s/most benefits/the most benefits/
  s/full-backwards/fully backwards/

Req. 3, second sentence:
  s/Any Diameter node has an access/All Diameter nodes have access/