Last Call Review of draft-ietf-cose-key-thumbprint-04
review-ietf-cose-key-thumbprint-04-artart-lc-faltstrom-2024-03-24-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-cose-key-thumbprint |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 06) | |
| Type | IETF Last Call Review | |
| Team | ART Area Review Team (artart) | |
| Deadline | 2024-04-02 | |
| Requested | 2024-03-12 | |
| Authors | Kohei Isobe , Hannes Tschofenig , Orie Steele | |
| I-D last updated | 2024-12-20 (Latest revision 2024-09-06) | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart IETF Last Call review of -04
by Mallory Knodel
(diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -04 by Derrell Piper (diff) Artart IETF Last Call review of -04 by Patrik Fältström (diff) Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -04 by Joel Jaeggli (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Patrik Fältström |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-cose-key-thumbprint by ART Area Review Team Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/rDd9oksfWIyCTPfj99MYAg4KHCs | |
| Reviewed revision | 04 (document currently at 06) | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2024-03-24 |
review-ietf-cose-key-thumbprint-04-artart-lc-faltstrom-2024-03-24-00
The document seems to reference the key background material related to URI's correctly, like choice of base64 character set. It further uses the uri schemes allocated correctly and as far as I can see it does not create any problems either as it uses the same format as the main URI definition. So, move ahead!