IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-stir-certificate-transparency-05
review-ietf-stir-certificate-transparency-05-artart-lc-levine-2026-10-31-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-stir-certificate-transparency |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 05) | |
| Type | IETF Last Call Review | |
| Team | ART Area Review Team (artart) | |
| Deadline | 2026-11-05 | |
| Requested | 2026-10-22 | |
| Authors | Chris Wendt , Robert Śliwa , Alec Fenichel , Vinit Anil Gaikwad | |
| I-D last updated | 2026-10-22 (Latest revision 2026-10-21) | |
| Completed reviews |
Artart IETF Last Call review of -05
by John R. Levine
|
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | John R. Levine |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-stir-certificate-transparency by ART Area Review Team Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/kjnXwayHcvTReLhzzQihmhIsPU4 | |
| Reviewed revision | 05 | |
| Result | Ready w/nits | |
| Completed | 2026-10-31 |
review-ietf-stir-certificate-transparency-05-artart-lc-levine-2026-10-31-00
I am the assigned ARTART reviewer for draft-ietf-stir-certificate-transparency. Keeping in mind that I have no particular expertise in telephony or certificates, the document seems technically fine, adapting widely used web CT techniques in a straightforward way to STIR. From a process point of view, it seems peculiar to use RFC 6962 as the reference since it's been obsoleted by RFC 9162. I'm guessing that's deliberate because it's based on CT 1.0 rather than 2.0. Assuming that's true, it would be good to say so explicitly and perhaps a sentence or two about why it's using the obsolete 1.0 rather than 2.0. (That's not me saying 1.0 is obsolete, that's what 9162 says.)