Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lake-traces-06
review-ietf-lake-traces-06-intdir-lc-eastlake-2023-09-12-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-lake-traces
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Last Call Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2023-09-11
Requested 2023-08-28
Authors Göran Selander , John Preuß Mattsson , Marek Serafin , Marco Tiloca , Mališa Vučinić
I-D last updated 2023-09-12
Completed reviews Intdir Last Call review of -06 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Ivaylo Petrov (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -06 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-lake-traces by Internet Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/oU5c_xgUv2epsLZt_yEqKFgytKQ
Reviewed revision 06 (document currently at 09)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2023-09-12
review-ietf-lake-traces-06-intdir-lc-eastlake-2023-09-12-00
I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for
<draft-ietf-lake-taces-06.txt>. These comments were written primarily
for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and
shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat
comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with
any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details
on the INT Directorate, see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/>.

Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document
as NO OBJECTION.

This document contains some example traces of Ephemeral Diffie-Hellman
Over COSE (EDHOC). It has no INTAREA issues that would not be covered
in draft-ietf-lake-edhoc to which it refers.

The following is an issue I found with this document that SHOULD be
corrected before publication:

Section 5, must->MUST

The following are minor issues (typos, misspelling, minor text
improvements) with the document:

CWT should be expanded on first use.

In certificates, the hex values of successive octets are separated by
colon whereas elsewhere, when they are separated, they are separated
by spaces. Seems better to be consistent.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com