Telechat Review of draft-ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile-15
review-ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile-15-intdir-telechat-jiang-2022-11-22-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 21)
Type Telechat Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2022-11-25
Requested 2022-11-14
Requested by Éric Vyncke
Authors Hendrik Brockhaus , David von Oheimb , Steffen Fries
I-D last updated 2022-11-22
Completed reviews Dnsdir Last Call review of -14 by David Blacka (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -14 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Artart Last Call review of -14 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -15 by Sheng Jiang (diff)
Iotdir Telechat review of -15 by Niklas Widell (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Sheng Jiang
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile by Internet Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/mtGIuD2_vIhPfPhFph6PrXJ1hOs
Reviewed revision 15 (document currently at 21)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2022-11-22
review-ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile-15-intdir-telechat-jiang-2022-11-22-00
I have reviewed this document as part of the IntArea directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. 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: draft-ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile-15
Reviewer: Sheng Jiang
Review Date: 2022-11-23
Result: Ready with Nits

This Standards Track document specifies a lightweight PKI management 
operations based on matured CMP (Certificate Management Protocol), 
CRMF (Certificate Request Message Format, and HTTP-based or CoAP-based 
transfer. The mechanism is operable. This document is well-written 
and READY with minor Nits (below) for publication. 

Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC 2986
Two obsolete informational references:
      RFC 2510 has obsoleted by RFC 4210
      RFC 5246 has obsoleted by RFC 8446

Regards,

Sheng