Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5990bis-05
review-ietf-lamps-rfc5990bis-05-genart-lc-holmberg-2024-04-18-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5990bis |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 06) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2024-04-23 | |
| Requested | 2024-04-09 | |
| Authors | Russ Housley , Sean Turner | |
| I-D last updated | 2024-04-18 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -05
by Christer Holmberg
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Dhruv Dhody (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Christer Holmberg |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5990bis by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/5F4cEEHuVio4fwRCvj_9QvFVUPo | |
| Reviewed revision | 05 (document currently at 06) | |
| Result | Almost ready | |
| Completed | 2024-04-18 |
review-ietf-lamps-rfc5990bis-05-genart-lc-holmberg-2024-04-18-00
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://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>. Document: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5990bis-05 Reviewer: Christer Holmberg Review Date: 2024-04-18 IETF LC End Date: 2024-04-23 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: The document is well written, and easy to read. As I am not familiar with RSA-KEM, I don't have comments regarding the changes compared to RFC 5990. However, I do have an editorial comment that I would like the authors to address. Major issues: N/A Minor issues: N/A Nits/editorial comments: Section 1.6 describes the changes from RFC 5990. Q1: The text mixes between past tense (e.g., "required") and present tense (e.g., "includes"). Please use consistent grammar. Q2: It is unclear what "RFC 5990 includes" means. Does it mean that the usage of something was defined? Was support of something required? etc. Q3: Similar to the above question, it is unclear what "discussion of this" means. Q4: I think it would be useful to include a few words about WHY a change has been done. If described elsewhere in the document, a reference could be added.