Last Call Review of draft-ietf-rats-uccs-10
review-ietf-rats-uccs-10-opsdir-lc-andersson-2024-10-04-00

Hi!

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.
These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational
aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call
may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors
and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call
comments.

Result: Has nits

The document defines A CBOR Tag for Unprotected CWT Claims Sets.

It is a valuable addition to the applicable technology space.

Usage, use cases, advantages, disadvantages, security considerations,
and terms that might be unknown to the reader are presentend and
discussed clearly.

In Section 6.3. content-Format registration the following table is
presented. It seems that the ID should be only a numerical value
("601"?) instead of "TBD601".

        +=======================+==========+========+=============+
        | Media Type            | Encoding | ID     | Reference   |
        +=======================+==========+========+=============+
        | application/uccs+cbor | -        | TBD601 | Section 6.3 |
        |                       |          |        | of RFCthis  |
        +-----------------------+----------+--------+-------------+

Nits:

* pre-existing -> preexisting

The following idnits warnings should be attended:

draft-ietf-rats-uccs-10.txt:
-(9): Line appears to be too long, but this could be caused by non-ascii
characters in UTF-8 encoding

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == There are 3 instances of lines with non-ascii characters in the document.

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Missing Reference: 'RFCthis' is mentioned on line 351, but not defined

  == Missing Reference: 'I-D.bormann-cbor-draft-numbers' is mentioned on line
     652, but not defined

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-31) exists of
     draft-ietf-rats-eat-28

     Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

Thanks for your contribution!

--
Per