Telechat Review of draft-ietf-anima-brski-cloud-15
review-ietf-anima-brski-cloud-15-iotdir-telechat-wu-2025-06-28-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-anima-brski-cloud
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 19)
Type Telechat Review
Team Internet of Things Directorate (iotdir)
Deadline 2025-07-11
Requested 2025-06-27
Requested by Mahesh Jethanandani
Authors Owen Friel , Rifaat Shekh-Yusef , Michael Richardson
I-D last updated 2025-09-10 (Latest revision 2025-09-09)
Completed reviews Genart IETF Last Call review of -13 by Russ Housley (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -13 by Mike Ounsworth (diff)
Httpdir IETF Last Call review of -11 by Mike Bishop (diff)
Intdir IETF Last Call review of -11 by Carlos J. Bernardos (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -11 by Mike Ounsworth (diff)
Rtgdir IETF Last Call review of -11 by Russ White (diff)
Iotdir IETF Last Call review of -11 by Qin Wu (diff)
Dnsdir IETF Last Call review of -13 by Tim Wicinski (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -14 by Mike Ounsworth (diff)
Iotdir Telechat review of -15 by Qin Wu (diff)
Dnsdir Telechat review of -16 by Tim Wicinski (diff)
Comments 
Please assign to Qin Wu who has reviewed previous versions of this document.
Assignment Reviewer Qin Wu
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-anima-brski-cloud by Internet of Things Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iot-directorate/-_l9UW5Yc7YH7QDOnndjWjbe91g
Reviewed revision 15 (document currently at 19)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2025-06-28
review-ietf-anima-brski-cloud-15-iotdir-telechat-wu-2025-06-28-00
I am the assigned IoT Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Directorate aims
to review IETF documents related with IoT (Internet of Things). Please treat
these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information,
please see https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/iotdir/about/

Thank you editors for taking into consideration the feedback in my early
review, specifically. The latest version is in good shape and easy to digest. A
few more editorial comments and suggestions as follows: 1. Can you distinguish
term definitions and abbreviations in the terminology section, e.g., VAR is
frequent occurred abbreviation, it will be nice to introduce abbreviation
separately in the terminology section 1.1. 2. Section 1.2 said: "
   There are DHCP options that a network operator can use to configure
   devices such as a VoIP phone.  DHCP options 66, 150 (TFTP/HTTP server
   names), option 120 (SIP Server), or even option 157 (Certificate
   Provisioning)
"
Can you add reference to new introduced DHCP options?
3. Can you add a legend for "VR-sign(N)"? Also there are no text in section 2
to explain "VR-sign(N)".

4. Section 5 said:
"In the event of a merger between two companies, then the mechanism that is
described in section 7.2 MAY be applicable. " The mechanism in section 7.2 May
be applicable for what??, It seems not complete.

5. Section 7.1 said:
"
The Provisional TLS connection does not do [RFC9525],
Section 6.3 DNS-ID verification at the beginning of the connection,
so a forced redirection to a captive portal system will not be
detected.
"
Are you saying Provisional TLS Connection does not do DNS-ID Verification, if
yes, suggest to move "[RFC9525] Section 6.3" after DNS-ID verification.

6. Section 7.1 said:
"
It is RECOMMENDED therefore that the Pledge look for [RFC8910]
   attributes in DHCP, and if present, use the [RFC8908] API to learn if
   it is captive.
"
NEW TEXT:
"
It is RECOMMENDED therefore that the Pledge look for Captive-Portal
Identification
 attributes [RFC8910] in DHCP, and if present, use the Captive-Portal API
 [RFC8908] to learn if
it is captive.
"