Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lamps-ocsp-nonce-03
review-ietf-lamps-ocsp-nonce-03-genart-lc-palombini-2020-09-02-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-lamps-ocsp-nonce
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2020-09-02
Requested 2020-08-19
Authors Mohit Sahni
I-D last updated 2020-09-02
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -03 by Francesca Palombini (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Sean Turner (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -03 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Francesca Palombini
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-lamps-ocsp-nonce by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/ld4vpLrsrZ_8AspMfdVjslFuyuo
Reviewed revision 03 (document currently at 05)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2020-09-02
review-ietf-lamps-ocsp-nonce-03-genart-lc-palombini-2020-09-02-00
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://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-lamps-ocsp-nonce-03
Reviewer: Francesca Palombini
Review Date: 2020-09-02
IETF LC End Date: 2020-09-02
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that
should be fixed before publication.

Major issues: -

Minor issues: -

Nits/editorial comments:

Section 1:
OLD:
This extension was
   previously defined in section 4.1.1 of [RFC6960]
NEW:
This extension was
   previously defined in section 4.4.1 of [RFC6960]

Section 2:
The message format for the OCSP request and response is defined in
   the [RFC6960].  It also defines the standard extensions for OCSP
   messages based on the extension model employed in X.509 version 3
   certificates (see [RFC5280]).

"It" in the second sentence is ambiguous, I think it would be better to replace
with "[RFC6960]".