Last Call Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype-04
review-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype-04-genart-lc-halpern-2024-08-15-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 18)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2024-08-26
Requested 2024-08-12
Requested by Joe Clarke
Authors Guy Harris , Michael Richardson
I-D last updated 2026-04-13 (Latest revision 2026-04-06)
Completed reviews Genart IETF Last Call review of -04 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Intdir IETF Last Call review of -05 by Carlos J. Bernardos (diff)
Artart IETF Last Call review of -10 by Julian Reschke (diff)
Tsvart IETF Last Call review of -10 by Michael Scharf (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -10 by Luis M. Contreras (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -13 by Tirumaleswar Reddy.K (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Joel M. Halpern
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/cuLKJjZwBKVbeKclE4YB4E4VMz0
Reviewed revision 04 (document currently at 18)
Result Almost ready
Completed 2024-08-15
review-ietf-opsawg-pcaplinktype-04-genart-lc-halpern-2024-08-15-00
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-opsawg-pcaplinktype-04
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2024-08-15
IETF LC End Date: None
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as an Informational RFC.

Major issues:
    While it may be vacuous, it is necessary to include a security
    considerations section.

Minor issues:
    (Unclear if this is Major or Minor): The table layout for the IANA registry
    fails to conform to I-D / RFC requirements.  Considered as text, it is much
    too wide.  Considered as HTML, the normal rendering blocks important parts
    of the table.  I recommend asking the RPC and IANA how to format the I-D so
    as to produce a suitable RFC.

Nits/editorial comments: N/A