Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5019bis-05

Request Review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5019bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2024-03-29
Requested 2024-03-08
Authors Tadahiko Ito , Clint Wilson , Corey Bonnell , Sean Turner
I-D last updated 2024-03-23
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -05 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Paul Kyzivat
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5019bis by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 08)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2024-03-23
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


Document: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5019bis-05
Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
Review Date: 2024-03-23
IETF LC End Date: 2024-03-29
IESG Telechat date: ?


This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the 



1) MINOR: Abstract:

The abstract from RFC 5019 has not been carried over to this bis. It has 
been replaced by an explanation for why RFC 5019 is being updated.  Once 
this is published this explanation text will cease to be relevant to a 
new reader. I suggest bringing back the abstract from RFC 5019. 
(Possibly with updates.) The explanation for why the bis was made can be 
moved to an appendix.

That appendix should also include the list of substantive changes now at 
the end of section 1.

2) MINOR: Duplications from RFC 6960

Sections 3.1.1 and 3.2.1 now includes ASN.1 definitions copied from RFC 
6960. I suggest that you at least make clear that these are copies and 
are not changed from RFC 6960. Or reconsider whether including them 
substantially improves the document.

3) MINOR: Security considerations

You should consider adding security considerations discussing the 
implications of the backward compatibility with RFC 5019. (E.g., 
continuing to support SHA-1.)

4) MINOR: Examples

Is there a reason why Appendix A containing examples has been removed?