I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at   Document:                                      draft-ietf-dime-e2e-sec-req-04 Reviewer:                                         Christer Holmberg Review Date:                                 7 May 2016 IETF LC End Date:                         12 April 2016 IETF Telechat Date:                     N/A Summary:                                       The document is well written, and almost ready for publication is informational RFC. However, I have a few editorial issues, related to the Introduction, that I ask the authors to address. Major Issues:                                 None Minor Issues:                                 None Editorial Issues:   Q_ABSTRACT_1:                              The text says that the draft “discusses” requirements. In my opinion it should say “defines” or “specifies”.     Q_INTRODUCTION_1:                    Please add references for TLS (for TCP) and DTLS (for SCTP).     Q_INTRODUCTION_2:   The text says: “…or alternative security mechanisms independent of Diameter (e.g., IPsec) is used.”               2A: I guess it should be “are used”?   2B: I am not sure I understand what “independent of Diameter” means.     Q_INTRODUCTION_3:   The text talks about security between non-neighbour nodes, while the draft name includes “e2e”. However, when reading Section 4, non-neighbour does not necessarily mean end-to-end. I think it would be good to explicitly clarify that in the Introduction.     Q_INTRODUCTION_4:   The text says: “This document collects requirements for developing a solution to protect Diameter AVPs.”   2A: It needs to be clear that it’s about protecting AVPs between non-neighbour nodes.   2B: Instead of “collect”, please use the same terminology as in the Abstract.     Q_INTRODUCTION_5:                 Please enhance AVP on first occurrence. Currently it’s not done until Section 3.