Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-elegy-rfc8989bis-03

Request Review of draft-ietf-elegy-rfc8989bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2023-01-23
Requested 2023-01-09
Authors Martin Duke
Draft last updated 2023-01-16
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -04 by Acee Lindem
Artart Last Call review of -03 by Scott Hollenbeck (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Vincent Roca (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -03 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -03 by Reese Enghardt (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -03 by Dr. Bernard D. Aboba (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -04 by Vincent Roca
Assignment Reviewer Reese Enghardt
State Completed
Review review-ietf-elegy-rfc8989bis-03-genart-lc-enghardt-2023-01-16
Posted at
Reviewed revision 03 (document currently at 04)
Result Ready with Nits
Completed 2023-01-16
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


Document: draft-ietf-elegy-rfc8989bis-03
Reviewer: Reese Enghardt
Review Date: 2023-01-16
IETF LC End Date: 2023-01-23
IESG Telechat date: 2023-02-02

Summary: This document is clear and concise. It is almost ready for
publication, just one minor issue.

Major issues: None.

Minor issues:

In Section 5.1:

"Some organizations might not
   be deterred in either case, while others might now find such an
   attack to not be feasible."
As the cost of the attack decreases, should the "not" be removed in the second
part here, so it'll read "others might now find such an attach to be feasible"?

Nits/editorial comments: None.