Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis-10
review-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis-10-genart-lc-even-2022-10-13-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 14) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2022-10-19 | |
Requested | 2022-10-05 | |
Authors | Boris Makarenko , Vasily Dolmatov | |
I-D last updated | 2022-10-13 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -10
by Roni Even
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Mohit Sethi (diff) Dnsdir Last Call review of -10 by Jim Reid (diff) Dnsdir Telechat review of -12 by Scott Rose (diff) Dnsdir Telechat review of -13 by Jim Reid (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Roni Even |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/KO6lPC4vPmg33Bamkw5B3h7gu1Y | |
Reviewed revision | 10 (document currently at 14) | |
Result | Almost ready | |
Completed | 2022-10-13 |
review-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis-10-genart-lc-even-2022-10-13-00
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://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5933-bis-?? Reviewer: Roni Even Review Date: 2022-10-13 IETF LC End Date: 2022-10-19 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: the document is almost ready for publication as some type of an RFC Major issues: The document is meant to be an informational RFC obsoleting RFC5933 a standard track RFC. why is this change. Minor issues: the directive in the IANA consideration "The entry for Value 3, GOST R 34.11-94 should be updated to have its Status changed to '-'" is not clear. there is no status field in the table as I see in RFC8624 section 3.3 Nits/editorial comments: