IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-sidrops-manifest-numbers-07
review-ietf-sidrops-manifest-numbers-07-rtgdir-lc-dukes-2025-08-04-00

I'm reviewing this draft on behalf of Routing Area Directorate.

The draft is well written, and clearly states that it updates RFC9286.

I see a few nits (below) but nothing major.

#1 The term filename is used throughout to describe the name that, upon change,
results in a reset of the manifest number. But "filename" is not defined in
RFC9286.  Do the authors intend to refer to FileAndHash or the file name in
FileAndHash, something else? If FileAndHash or FileList is the target should
filename be replaced with FileAndHash to be fully resolved to a defined term?

#2 Does the process described in section 2 apply to any change in the FileList
associated with a manifest number or just the file name in a single FileAndHash?

#3 I had to read the Section 3 "Section 2 contains a specific update to
[RFC9286]" to understand that section 2 was in fact the update to RFC9286. That
is worth clarifying in Section 2 itself.