Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6712bis-07
review-ietf-lamps-rfc6712bis-07-tsvart-lc-eggert-2024-11-03-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6712bis |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 09) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Transport Area Review Team (tsvart) | |
Deadline | 2024-10-23 | |
Requested | 2024-10-09 | |
Authors | Hendrik Brockhaus , David von Oheimb , Mike Ounsworth , John Gray | |
I-D last updated | 2024-11-03 | |
Completed reviews |
Tsvart Last Call review of -07
by Lars Eggert
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -07 by Meral Shirazipour (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Charlie Kaufman (diff) Artart Last Call review of -07 by Claudio Allocchio (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -07 by Mohamed Boucadair (diff) Httpdir Last Call review of -07 by Lucas Pardue (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Lars Eggert |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6712bis by Transport Area Review Team Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/Q_Ljglfc7JHtapXOW2Jcix3PeSA | |
Reviewed revision | 07 (document currently at 09) | |
Result | Ready w/issues | |
Completed | 2024-11-03 |
review-ietf-lamps-rfc6712bis-07-tsvart-lc-eggert-2024-11-03-00
# tsvart review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6712bis-07 CC @larseggert This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF discussion list for information. When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review. ## Comments ### Section 3.1, paragraph 1 ``` Implementations MUST support HTTP/1.0 [RFC1945] and SHOULD support HTTP/1.1 [RFC9112]. ``` It's almost 2025. Can we still not recommend more modern versions of HTTP, and also enforce the use of TLS? ### Inclusive language Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more guidance: * Term `man`; alternatives might be `individual`, `people`, `person` ## Nits All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. ### Outdated references Document references `draft-ietf-lamps-rfc4210bis-13`, but `-14` is the latest available revision. Reference `[RFC5246]` to `RFC5246`, which was obsoleted by `RFC8446` (this may be on purpose). Reference `[RFC2510]` to `RFC2510`, which was obsoleted by `RFC4210` (this may be on purpose). ### Grammar/style #### Section 3.5, paragraph 2 ``` 'cmp' to ease interworking in a multi-vendor environment. The CMP client nee ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ``` This word is normally spelled as one. ## Notes This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT]. [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments [IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool