Skip to main content

IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-scitt-scrapi-08
review-ietf-scitt-scrapi-08-opsdir-lc-buraglio-2026-04-09-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-scitt-scrapi
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2026-04-13
Requested 2026-03-30
Requested by Mohamed Boucadair
Authors Henk Birkholz , Jon Geater , Antoine Delignat-Lavaud
I-D last updated 2026-04-26 (Latest revision 2026-04-21)
Completed reviews Httpdir Early review of -01 by Darrel Miller (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -09 by Alexey Melnikov
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -08 by Nick Buraglio (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -08 by Gyan Mishra (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -08 by Valery Smyslov (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Nick Buraglio
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-scitt-scrapi by Ops Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/L1VaPdk4pde07WrgmwDdpK8VO3E
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 09)
Result Ready
Completed 2026-04-09
review-ietf-scitt-scrapi-08-opsdir-lc-buraglio-2026-04-09-00
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-ietf-opsawg-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-scitt-scrapi version 8]

- Reviewer: [Nick Buraglio]

- Review Date: [09-April-2026]

- Intended Status: [Proposed Standard]

---

## Summary

Choose one:

- Ready: No issues found. This document is ready for publication.

## General Operational Comments Alignment with RFC 5706bis

Provide an overview of the draft’s operational feasibility, readability, and
alignment with RFC5706bis guidelines. Example:

> This document describes a REST API that supports the normative
   requirements of the SCITT Architecture.

The document is well written with many examples. It is easy to follow and
describes the mechanisms well for implementation and operations well.

## Major Issues

 > No major issues found.

---

## Minor Issues

 > No minor issues found.

---

## Nits

Section 3.3.3.  Status 400 - Invalid Client Request suggests

   The following expected errors are defined.  Implementations MAY
   return other errors, so long as they are valid [RFC9290] objects.

Is there a reason that there is no MUST in this section? It reads as if there
are a set of errors that are ever-present, and therefor expected, but none seem
to be required with a MUST. Food for consideration.

Section 6.1.  Well-Known URI for Key Discovery
Suggest:
OLD:
   The following value is requested to be registered in the "Well-Known
   URIs" registry (using the template from [RFC8615]):
   ...
   URI suffix: scitt-keys Change controller: IETF Specification
   document(s): RFCthis Status: Permanent Related information:
   [I-D.draft-ietf-scitt-architecture]

NEW:
6.1.  Well-Known URI for Key Discovery

   The following value is requested to be registered in the "Well-Known
   URIs" registry (using the template from [RFC8615]):
   ...
   URI suffix: scitt-keys Change controller: IETF Specification
   document(s): RFC this Status: Permanent Related information:
   [I-D.draft-ietf-scitt-architecture]

---