Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ace-wg-coap-eap-09
review-ietf-ace-wg-coap-eap-09-genart-lc-even-2024-01-24-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-ace-wg-coap-eap |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 15) | |
| Type | IETF Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2024-01-25 | |
| Requested | 2024-01-11 | |
| Authors | Rafael Marin-Lopez , Dan Garcia-Carrillo | |
| I-D last updated | 2025-09-12 (Latest revision 2025-02-19) | |
| Completed reviews |
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -09
by Deb Cooley
(diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -09 by Roni Even (diff) Secdir Early review of -08 by Deb Cooley (diff) Iotdir Early review of -08 by Eliot Lear (diff) Iotdir Telechat review of -11 by Eliot Lear (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Roni Even |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-ace-wg-coap-eap by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/NtlB3j-w5gSKAVF6wKHpg75hIPE | |
| Reviewed revision | 09 (document currently at 15) | |
| Result | Ready w/nits | |
| Completed | 2024-01-24 |
review-ietf-ace-wg-coap-eap-09-genart-lc-even-2024-01-24-00
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://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>. Document: draft-ietf-ace-wg-coap-eap-?? Reviewer: Roni Even Review Date: 2024-01-24 IETF LC End Date: 2024-01-25 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: The document is ready for publication as a standard track rfc with nits Major issues: Minor issues: Nits/editorial comments: The document defines a well known uri. Through out the document it keeps the name well-known but it should be replaced with the specified coap-eap by the authors or as a directive to the rfc editor. As for the iana registration request rfc8615 registration procedure is specification required and not expert review. There is also a missing column “state” probably should be permanent.