Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-anima-constrained-join-proxy-10
review-ietf-anima-constrained-join-proxy-10-tsvart-lc-dawkins-2022-05-16-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-anima-constrained-join-proxy
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 15)
Type Last Call Review
Team Transport Area Review Team (tsvart)
Deadline 2022-04-08
Requested 2022-03-25
Authors Michael Richardson , Peter Van der Stok , Panos Kampanakis
I-D last updated 2022-05-16
Completed reviews Iotdir Last Call review of -14 by Russ Housley (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -14 by Mališa Vučinić (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -14 by Ines Robles (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -14 by Jürgen Schönwälder (diff)
Iotdir Last Call review of -05 by Russ Housley (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -10 by Spencer Dawkins (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -09 by Jürgen Schönwälder (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -09 by Mališa Vučinić (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -09 by Ines Robles (diff)
Artart Last Call review of -10 by Rich Salz (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -10 by Jürgen Schönwälder (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Spencer Dawkins
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-anima-constrained-join-proxy by Transport Area Review Team Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/oGL5HJ0oW4DIBujGLTcgoL9BBz4
Reviewed revision 10 (document currently at 15)
Result Ready
Completed 2022-05-16
review-ietf-anima-constrained-join-proxy-10-tsvart-lc-dawkins-2022-05-16-00
This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.

This is a well-written specification. My only question - and I expect the
answer will be “no” - is whether there is any concern that sizes of the
resources that are being passed around might exceed the MTU between the pledge
and the registrar, and whether there should be a mention of this possibility in
the specification.

Best,

Spencer