Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-27
review-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-27-tsvart-telechat-ott-2025-10-06-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 28)
Type Telechat Review
Team Transport Area Review Team (tsvart)
Deadline 2025-10-07
Requested 2025-09-26
Authors Marco Tiloca , Göran Selander , Francesca Palombini , John Preuß Mattsson , Rikard Höglund
I-D last updated 2026-08-13 (Latest revision 2025-12-23)
Completed reviews Genart IETF Last Call review of -26 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Artart IETF Last Call review of -26 by Patrik Fältström (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -26 by Mališa Vučinić (diff)
Tsvart IETF Last Call review of -26 by Joerg Ott (diff)
Tsvart Telechat review of -27 by Joerg Ott (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Joerg Ott
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm by Transport Area Review Team Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/V8CQZuCXuE8EAB2KRRevHeDYtU4
Reviewed revision 27 (document currently at 28)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2025-10-06
review-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-27-tsvart-telechat-ott-2025-10-06-00
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.

I just reviewed the proposed changes and they seem to address my concerns.

One bit to note: when pointing at unreliable messaging and stating that
congestion control would still be required is the right way to go:

"The use of an unreliable transport MUST NOT forego enforcing congestion
control as appropriate for that transport."

The question is: does this lead to any interoperable outcome unless it
is specified how to realise this.  Should one point to DCCP, QUIC Datagrams,
or something else concrete rather than leaving this up open.  What would
an implementer do?