IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-stir-8588bis-02
review-ietf-stir-8588bis-02-artart-lc-lear-2026-08-01-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-stir-8588bis |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 02) | |
| Type | IETF Last Call Review | |
| Team | ART Area Review Team (artart) | |
| Deadline | 2026-08-13 | |
| Requested | 2026-07-30 | |
| Authors | Chris Wendt , Mary Barnes | |
| I-D last updated | 2026-08-14 (Latest revision 2026-07-21) | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart IETF Last Call review of -02
by Peter E. Yee
Artart IETF Last Call review of -02 by Eliot Lear Secdir IETF Last Call review of -02 by David Mandelberg |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Eliot Lear |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-stir-8588bis by ART Area Review Team Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/YYECyHPV3A75GZ-0jtQA-MrQy5A | |
| Reviewed revision | 02 | |
| Result | Ready w/issues | |
| Completed | 2026-08-01 |
review-ietf-stir-8588bis-02-artart-lc-lear-2026-08-01-00
This draft is a VERY minor update of RFC 8588 that seems only to correct an erratum in an example and a reference. There are, so far as I can tell, no normative changes to the specification. A review of ATIS-100074, the normative reference indicates that itself normatively references RFC 8588. I recommend that someone contact ATIS when if and when a new RFC issues. Two years ago I would have said that such a minor update is not a good use of RPC resources. Now I'm thinking that this will facilitate AI implementations. Others may have other opinions.