Early Review of draft-ietf-rats-corim-09
review-ietf-rats-corim-09-opsdir-early-fioccola-2026-01-09-00

Hi,

I have been selected as the Operational Directorate (opsdir) reviewer for this
Internet-Draft.

The Operational Directorate reviews all operational and management-related
Internet-Drafts to ensure alignment with operational best practices and that
adequate operational considerations are covered.

A complete set of _"Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management in
IETF Specifications"_ can be found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-opsarea-rfc5706bis/.

While these comments are primarily for the Operations and Management Area
Directors (Ops ADs), the authors should consider them alongside other feedback
received.

- Document: draft-ietf-rats-corim-09

- Reviewer: Giuseppe Fioccola

- Review Date: 2026-01-09

- Intended Status: Standards Track

---

## Summary

- Has Issues: I have some minor concerns about this document that I think
should be resolved before publication.

## General Operational Comments Alignment with RFC 5706bis

> This document specifies CoRIM (Concise Reference Integrity Manifest). It is a
data model which is used to realize a CBOR encoding suitable for cryptographic
operations and transmission over computer networks. Section 10 reports the
implementation status.

> The Operational Considerations section is missing and should be included,
according to draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis. In particular, it would be good to
add a description of how CoRIM is going to be deployed and managed, including
potential backward compatibility issues.

## Major Issues

> From an OPSDIR point of view, the addition of an Operational Considerations
section is recommended.

---

## Minor Issues

> Since Section 8 describes the appraisal of CoRIM-based inputs, it clarifies
the CoRIM usage and it is quite relevant. I think Section 8 (or part of it) can
be moved earlier in the document (e.g before Section 4) in order to allow the
reader to better understand the mechanism from the beginning.

---

## Nits

> In Section 2, it is mentioned that the document defines the ACS but I would
add a pointer to Section 9 where ACS and ARS are further detailed.

> I would also change the description of Table 1 in Section 2.2 in order to
explain how is it related with the ACS and ARS.

> In Section 3, Table 2 introduces the naming conventions but I suggest to
provide context for the reader. Maybe a reference to RFC 8610 is needed to
understand the types.

> Considering that the document also specifies CoMID tags in Section 5 and CoTL
tags in Section 6, I suggest to better highlight this point in the
Introduction. Maybe, since the document is quite long, a description of the
structure of document would be needed in the Introduction.

> Out of curiosity, did you consider to move the entire Section 9 to a separate
draft?

---