Telechat Review of draft-ietf-lamps-automation-keyusages-06
review-ietf-lamps-automation-keyusages-06-opsdir-telechat-liu-2025-04-02-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-lamps-automation-keyusages
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Telechat Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2025-03-24
Requested 2025-03-09
Requested by Mohamed Boucadair
Authors Hendrik Brockhaus , Dr. David Goltzsche
I-D last updated 2025-07-11 (Latest revision 2025-04-09)
Completed reviews Secdir IETF Last Call review of -04 by Carl Wallace (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -04 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -06 by Bing Liu (diff)
Comments 
Please focus on the clarity/lack/need of deployment/deployabilty + management considerations. Thank you.
Assignment Reviewer Bing Liu
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-lamps-automation-keyusages by Ops Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/_E-jvkGERfnV7q-TI-m4qJylMkU
Reviewed revision 06 (document currently at 08)
Result Ready
Completed 2025-04-02
review-ietf-lamps-automation-keyusages-06-opsdir-telechat-liu-2025-04-02-00
Hi Dear author, I'm assigned to review draft-ietf-lamps-automation-keyusages-06.

General status: Ready
This document is a concrete proposal of defining 4 new KeyPurposeIds of a
certificate. The definition and the use case/background are well described, and
ready for publish.

My only minor comment is regarding to the title, that the usage of the 4 new
KeyPurposeIds is summarized as “Automation”. I think 3 of them
(id-kp-configSignin, id-kp-trustanchorSigning, id-kp-updateSigning) are pretty
general and theoretically could be used in any network systems/nodes. I can
understand it’s not easy to summarize the usage. If there is consensus on
changing the title, maybe considering simply list the key purposes in the
title? (E.g. “X.509 Certificate Extended Key Usage (EKU) for trust anchor
configuration files, software and firmware update, and safety-critical
communication”); if not, pls ignore this comment.

B.R.
Bing