Summary: Needs 5 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass.
The document suggests possible changes to other documents, which might not age well once published. These need to be double checked.
I think the status of this document should be BCP or informational. The shepherd write-up says that it's PS because it updates rfc5890, however, I don't think there is requirement for an updating document to have the same status (given this is "just" and update and not a bis that's obsoleting the old doc; which btw. is confusing given this naming of this draft). I also don't find it a useful practice to (only) update RFCs to integrate errata. If the errata as currently logged as verified are not correct (and the document is not actually obsoleted by a bis), there should probably be a way to update the errata correctly.
Thank you for the work put into this document. I have only one easy to fix COMMENT but I also wonder (like Mirja) about the sections about errata. Regards, -éric == COMMENTS == -- Section 1 -- C.1) Please use a the RFC 8174 boilerplate.