Skip to main content

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 07)
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 07)
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.