IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lamps-dilithium-certificates-09
review-ietf-lamps-dilithium-certificates-09-genart-lc-sparks-2025-05-16-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-lamps-dilithium-certificates |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 13) | |
| Type | IETF Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2025-05-21 | |
| Requested | 2025-05-07 | |
| Authors | Jake Massimo , Panos Kampanakis , Sean Turner , Bas Westerbaan | |
| I-D last updated | 2025-10-29 (Latest revision 2025-09-30) | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart IETF Last Call review of -09
by Robert Sparks
(diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -11 by Watson Ladd (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Robert Sparks |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-lamps-dilithium-certificates by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/7cb4O_WzNmyi1WzWPSv5nZv16RQ | |
| Reviewed revision | 09 (document currently at 13) | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2025-05-16 |
review-ietf-lamps-dilithium-certificates-09-genart-lc-sparks-2025-05-16-00
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://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>. Document: draft-ietf-lamps-dilithium-certificates-09 Reviewer: Robert Sparks Review Date: 2025-05-16 IETF LC End Date: 2025-05-21 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: Ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC Minor comments: Reproducing OneAsymmetricKey from 5958 in section 6 brings some maintenance cost should that ever need to be touched. I twitched at the way RECOMMENDED was used in the first sentence of section 8, but got over it. The first sentence of the second paragraph of section 10 is hard to read. Maybe it's the "scheme are" disagreement, or maybe it's the repeated use of "under" - could it be restructured into simpler sentences? Caveat: I didn't verify any of the examples.