Last Call Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding-08
review-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding-08-genart-lc-resnick-2017-04-05-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-04-06
Requested 2017-03-23
Authors Martin Thomson
I-D last updated 2017-04-05
Completed reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Al Morton (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Pete Resnick (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Pete Resnick
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 09)
Result Ready
Completed 2017-04-05
review-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding-08-genart-lc-resnick-2017-04-05-00
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-httpbis-encryption-encoding-??
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review Date: 2017-04-05
IETF LC End Date: 2017-04-06
IESG Telechat date: 2017-04-13

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments: Looks fine from a non-security-expert's perspective.
It is my duty to ask about keyid in section 2.1:

      A "keyid" parameter SHOULD be a UTF-8
      [RFC3629] encoded string, particularly where the identifier might
      need to appear in a textual form.

I presume that simply means "might need to be rendered" and does not include
"might need to be typed in by someone", correct? The former is easy; the latter
probably requires a bit more text.