IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-cats-usecases-requirements-10
review-ietf-cats-usecases-requirements-10-genart-lc-even-2025-12-09-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-cats-usecases-requirements
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 14)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2025-12-17
Requested 2025-12-03
Authors Kehan Yao , Luis M. Contreras , Hang Shi , Shuai Zhang , Qing An
I-D last updated 2026-05-20 (Latest revision 2026-02-02)
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -07 by Ines Robles (diff)
Tsvart IETF Last Call review of -10 by Zaheduzzaman Sarker (diff)
Dnsdir IETF Last Call review of -10 by Jim Reid (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -10 by Roni Even (diff)
Artart IETF Last Call review of -10 by Tim Bray (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -11 by Daniel Migault (diff)
Rtgdir IETF Last Call review of -10 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -12 by Samier Barguil (diff)
Artart Telechat review of -12 by Tim Bray (diff)
Tsvart Telechat review of -12 by Zaheduzzaman Sarker (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Roni Even
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-cats-usecases-requirements by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/SgLok0tESNxbmM3uuCiKjWYXelI
Reviewed revision 10 (document currently at 14)
Result Ready
Completed 2025-12-09
review-ietf-cats-usecases-requirements-10-genart-lc-even-2025-12-09-00
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-cats-usecases-requirements-??
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2025-12-09
IETF LC End Date: 2025-12-17
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary:
The document is ready for publication as informational RFC.
It is well written and looks like it provides good input for the future model
and parameters. The challenge I see is in having a model that will address
running all the use cases in the same time, appendix A presents tests of
multiple usage if the same use case. Still as a requirement document I see no
issues with this document.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments: