Skip to main content

IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-stir-8588bis-02
review-ietf-stir-8588bis-02-genart-lc-yee-2026-08-12-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-stir-8588bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 02)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
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 Peter E. Yee
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-stir-8588bis by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/8kwrGUszAUc94FlEueLMWGQViD0
Reviewed revision 02
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2026-08-12
review-ietf-stir-8588bis-02-genart-lc-yee-2026-08-12-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.

Document: draft-ietf-stir-8588bis-02
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review Date: 2026-08-12
IETF LC End Date: 2026-08-13
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: This is a light update to RFC 8588, correcting an error (extraneous
quotation marks in an example), updating references (including in the IANA
Considerations), and changing one verb to be more of a recommendation. My
review was performed against the diff of this draft and RFC 8588. There's a
single nit that I'm pointing out, but really, the document is good to go.
[Ready with nits]

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:

Page 1, Abstract, last sentence: change "RFC8588" to "RFC 8588". (The no-space
form is only used for references and references aren't allowed in abstracts.)

Page 6, Section 11.1: just for fun, you might change the two occurrences of
"RFC XXXX" to "RFC XXXXX" since this draft will almost certainly be given a
five-digit RFC number upon publication. Totally not a nit!