Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc3709bis-06
review-ietf-lamps-rfc3709bis-06-opsdir-lc-jiang-2022-10-30-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc3709bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2022-10-28
Requested 2022-10-14
Authors Stefan Santesson , Russ Housley , Trevor Freeman , Leonard Rosenthol
I-D last updated 2022-10-30
Completed reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Sheng Jiang (diff)
Artart Last Call review of -06 by Shuping Peng (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -06 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -07 by Sheng Jiang (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -08 by Dan Harkins (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -07 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -08 by Sheng Jiang (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Sheng Jiang
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-lamps-rfc3709bis by Ops Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/pDlI1zaDAY9yHGDOlNTdPNXPu18
Reviewed revision 06 (document currently at 10)
Result Has nits
Completed 2022-10-30
review-ietf-lamps-rfc3709bis-06-opsdir-lc-jiang-2022-10-30-00
I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments
were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF
drafts. 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-rfc3709bis-06
Reviewer: Sheng Jiang
Review Date: 2022-10-30

This document combines RFC3709 and RFC6170 and obsoletes them. This document is
well written. It is almost Ready with minor Nits:

draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics has been published as RFC 9110.
Normative reference to an Informational RFC1952.

One more consideration: this document adds a new object identifier.
Technically, it is fine. However, it is defined/appeared only in an Appendix. I
am not sure this is procedurely right or not. Should not it at least be
mentioned/defined in the main text?

Regards,

Sheng