Last Call Review of draft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint-05
review-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint-05-opsdir-lc-banks-2015-06-30-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 08) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
Deadline | 2015-06-11 | |
Requested | 2015-06-08 | |
Authors | Michael B. Jones , Nat Sakimura | |
I-D last updated | 2015-06-30 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -05
by Joel M. Halpern
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -06 by Joel M. Halpern (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Adam W. Montville (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Sarah Banks (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Sarah Banks |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 05 (document currently at 08) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2015-06-30 |
review-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint-05-opsdir-lc-banks-2015-06-30-00
I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. Document reviewed: draft-ietf-jose-jwk-thumbprint-05 Summary: Ready to go, no nits, 5 comments (see tools). Overall, if I were implementing this in code, I'd appreciate the preamble, thanks for the clear description. I also appreciate that the security section was well considered and discussed. I have no major comments, other than that it read like .. an algorithm to me, and I was a bit surprised to see it on the Standards track, rather than informational, but that's just a comment, not a nit or problem. The draft is ready to go. Thanks Sarah