IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lamps-macaddress-on-05
review-ietf-lamps-macaddress-on-05-artart-lc-kucherawy-2026-02-11-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-lamps-macaddress-on |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 07) | |
| Type | IETF Last Call Review | |
| Team | ART Area Review Team (artart) | |
| Deadline | 2026-02-13 | |
| Requested | 2026-01-30 | |
| Authors | Russ Housley , Corey Bonnell , Joe Mandel , Tomofumi Okubo , Michael StJohns | |
| I-D last updated | 2026-03-18 (Latest revision 2026-03-12) | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart IETF Last Call review of -05
by Vijay K. Gurbani
(diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -04 by Sean Turner (diff) Artart IETF Last Call review of -05 by Murray Kucherawy (diff) Intdir Telechat review of -06 by David Lou (diff) Iotdir Telechat review of -06 by Jacqueline McCall (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Murray Kucherawy |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-lamps-macaddress-on by ART Area Review Team Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/fU0P64BONThOCWoqzc9ZrHrxBJQ | |
| Reviewed revision | 05 (document currently at 07) | |
| Result | Ready w/nits | |
| Completed | 2026-02-11 |
review-ietf-lamps-macaddress-on-05-artart-lc-kucherawy-2026-02-11-00
This document appears to be ready for publication. It was straightforward to understand, and I found no major or minor concerns from ART's perspective. A couple of nits: (1) "OCTET STRING" is defined in RFC 5280. I suggest saying so in Section 2, as that's a convention/definition used throughout. (Or, more generally, refer to RFC 5280 in that section as a source for some conventions used in this document.) (2) At the end of Section 3.3, there's a naked "SHOULD". I suggest including a sentence about why this advice is there and/or why it's not a MUST. (3) In Section 3.4.2, I imagine "ALL" is in all-caps for emphasis, but this makes it look kind of like a BCP 14 key word, and I suggest not doing that. (4) The "SHOULD" in Section 4 could also use some "why not MUST?" sort of prose.