Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lamps-cms-kemri-07
review-ietf-lamps-cms-kemri-07-artart-lc-turner-2024-02-01-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-lamps-cms-kemri |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 08) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | ART Area Review Team (artart) | |
| Deadline | 2023-10-25 | |
| Requested | 2023-10-11 | |
| Authors | Russ Housley , John Gray , Tomofumi Okubo | |
| I-D last updated | 2024-02-01 | |
| Completed reviews |
Opsdir Last Call review of -06
by Linda Dunbar
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -06 by Gyan Mishra (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Brian Weis (diff) Artart Last Call review of -07 by Sean Turner (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Sean Turner |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-lamps-cms-kemri by ART Area Review Team Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/Uo8K4UDxV3qpy_RYd5mL2KTjgik | |
| Reviewed revision | 07 (document currently at 08) | |
| Result | Ready w/nits | |
| Completed | 2024-02-01 |
review-ietf-lamps-cms-kemri-07-artart-lc-turner-2024-02-01-00
I-D Nits complains that the introduction and abstract should indicate that this I-D updates RFC 5652. Yeah this is a nit: In s2, should this: The originator establishes the CEK using these steps: be replaced by this: The originator establishes the CEK (or CAEK) using these steps: because the processing overview addresses both (see s1). Actually do the "or CEAK" in the rest of the section too? See: https://github.com/lamps-wg/cms-kemri/pull/11