Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-11

Request Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 15)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2023-02-20
Requested 2023-02-06
Authors Kenneth Vaughn
I-D last updated 2023-02-09
Completed reviews Dnsdir Last Call review of -12 by Di Ma (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -11 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Joel M. Halpern
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 11 (document currently at 15)
Result Ready
Completed 2023-02-09
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


Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-11
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2023-02-09
IETF LC End Date: 2023-02-20
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC

Major issues: N/A

Minor issues:
    In the fourth paragraph of section 1.1, the text refers to "a secure
    association between two TLS Transport Models (TLSTMs)".  As I understand
    the terminology, there is one TLSTM.  There are two instances of /
    realizations of the model.  Should the sentence refer to instances or
    realizations, rather than two models? (i-d nits gets confused by the
    references to rfc 5953 in the revision description.  After looking at it, I
    realized there was no problem here, rather it is accurate.  A comment on
    this in item 14 of the shepherd writeup would have been helpful.)

Nits/editorial comments: N/A