Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-suit-manifest-25
review-ietf-suit-manifest-25-opsdir-lc-zhou-2024-02-26-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-suit-manifest
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 26)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2024-02-21
Requested 2024-02-07
Authors Brendan Moran , Hannes Tschofenig , Henk Birkholz , Koen Zandberg , Øyvind Rønningstad
I-D last updated 2024-02-26
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -25 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -25 by Tianran Zhou (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Tianran Zhou
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-suit-manifest by Ops Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/6SbsQoUaZk104GT0GfOgXbM_52c
Reviewed revision 25 (document currently at 26)
Result Ready
Completed 2024-02-26
review-ietf-suit-manifest-25-opsdir-lc-zhou-2024-02-26-00
I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of
the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included
in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

It's a very detailed document. I do not find any major issue from the OPS point
of view, I think this doc is ready for publication as RFC.

Some suggestions and nits:
1. I see a lot of must/MUST used in this documents. I cannot guess your
intention. But please check if you have correctly chosen the expression. For
example, I think Appendix should be informative, do you really want to use MUST
in Appendix A?

2. In table 1, "store(dest, source)   | Writes source into dest". There is mix
of abbreviation and full text. I think in the function source->src, in the
description dest->destination.

3. In section 5, it's better to have title for the figure. And one arrow(top
one) breaks the block. I think this is a nit you should revise.

Best,
Tianran