IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-satp-architecture-10
review-ietf-satp-architecture-10-genart-lc-kyzivat-2026-09-30-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-satp-architecture
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2026-10-07
Requested 2026-09-23
Authors Thomas Hardjono , Martin Hargreaves , Ned Smith , Venkatraman Ramakrishna
I-D last updated 2026-10-07 (Latest revision 2026-09-15)
Completed reviews Secdir Early review of -05 by Hilarie Orman (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -10 by Paul Kyzivat
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -10 by Michael P
Assignment Reviewer Paul Kyzivat
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-satp-architecture by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/uKoUg1lFz2T8GhrDMKs_zFjSaKc/
Reviewed revision 10
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2026-09-30
review-ietf-satp-architecture-10-genart-lc-kyzivat-2026-09-30-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-satp-architecture-10
Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
Review Date: 2026-09-30
IETF LC End Date: 2026-10-07
IESG Telechat date: TBD

Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits 
that should be fixed before publication.

Major issues: None.
Minor issues: None.
Nits:

I was surprised that a document at this level of abstraction singled out 
TLS1.3 as the mandatory protocol for the secure asset transfer protocol. 
Wouldn't other secure protocols (like QUIC) also suffice? Of course 
eventually one or a few must be chosen, but the architecture doc seems 
the wrong place for that. Seems like it would be more appropriate for 
the CORE document.

Otherwise, aside from a few typos, this document seems good to go.