Telechat Review of draft-ietf-mls-architecture-10
review-ietf-mls-architecture-10-intdir-telechat-jinmei-2023-01-29-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-mls-architecture
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Telechat Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2023-01-29
Requested 2023-01-16
Requested by Éric Vyncke
Authors Benjamin Beurdouche , Eric Rescorla , Emad Omara , Srinivas Inguva , Alan Duric
I-D last updated 2023-01-29
Completed reviews Artart Last Call review of -13 by Valery Smyslov
Secdir Early review of -09 by Yoav Nir (diff)
Genart Early review of -09 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -09 by Tim Wicinski (diff)
Artart Early review of -09 by Valery Smyslov (diff)
Artart Last Call review of -10 by Valery Smyslov (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Yoav Nir (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -10 by Tatuya Jinmei (diff)
Dnsdir Telechat review of -10 by David C Lawrence (diff)
Comments 
Thank you in advance for a review with the Internet and DNS architectures in mind.

Regards

-éric
Assignment Reviewer Tatuya Jinmei
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-mls-architecture by Internet Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/URffVLH9-b2bpMqU06EoydK6PUo
Reviewed revision 10 (document currently at 13)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2023-01-29
review-ietf-mls-architecture-10-intdir-telechat-jinmei-2023-01-29-00
I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for
draft-ietf-mls-architecture-10.txt. These comments were written primarily for
the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s)
should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other
IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that
have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/.

I've reviewed the draft in terms of issues or concerns for the Internet Area.
I've not seen any such issues. And, overall, the document is well written and
looks complete for publication.

The only possible nit I might note is that some technical terms such as
"Proposal" or "Commit" messages are used without a reference or definition,
which confused me while reviewing the draft. From a quick look at the protocol
draft, these may be defined in that draft, but in any case, it would be more
reader friendly if the architecture draft has a "terminology" section, listing
some of those terms with a brief description and or a proper reference.