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-hip-dex-11.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20191107
IETF LC End Date: 20191114
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:
 - 1.2 page 6: highligts -> highlights

 - 3 page 8: RFC 6090 does not fully define ECDH because of the "compact"
  representation. Now it is a detail and if it can have an impact for
  implementors I think the security directorate will ask for a clarification
  (and in general I rely on the security directorate for all security
   related points, for instance whether DEX has a formal proof of its
   security properties)

 - 5.3.2 page 23: return-routablility -> return-routability

 - 4.1.1 page 11: I wonder if the puzzle solution check includes the
  check of the puzzle itself but the remark saying with K=0 the puzzle
  is just a retrun-routability cookie provided an answer... (so nothing
  to change)

 - at the exception of the Acknowledgments section you use the English
  spelling (with a 'e'): it is consistent with other HIP documents so
  I have no problem with this.

 - 4.1.3.1 page 14: "and he system" -> "and the system"

 - 9 page 42: perhaps a SHOULD in "Thus, any signaling
      that indicates such anonymity should be ignored as explained in
      Section 1.1." ?

 - 9 page 43: computated -> computed

 - B page 50: IEDG -> IESG

Regards

Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr