Last Call Review of draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis-11
review-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis-11-secdir-lc-schwartz-2025-03-13-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 15) | |
| Type | IETF Last Call Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2025-04-09 | |
| Requested | 2025-03-12 | |
| Authors | Joseph A. Salowey , Sean Turner | |
| I-D last updated | 2025-10-30 (Latest revision 2025-07-21) | |
| Completed reviews |
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -11
by Benjamin M. Schwartz
(diff)
Artart IETF Last Call review of -11 by Barry Leiba (diff) Genart IETF Last Call review of -11 by Susan Hares (diff) Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -11 by Giuseppe Fioccola (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Benjamin M. Schwartz |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/O_f9x49Y-DVSXem7nahW3V2cHu0 | |
| Reviewed revision | 11 (document currently at 15) | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2025-03-13 |
review-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis-11-secdir-lc-schwartz-2025-03-13-00
Nit: "leave an items", lower case "* update the note on the role ...". Use of BCP 14 "IANA SHALL" seems odd, but I assume IANA process experts have reviewed this formulation. I wish this document would populate the "Comment" column on some of the discouraged entries, or at least note the reasoning in the body of the document. As it stands, it seems that a reader could find a discouraged entry in these registries, read the Comment column, read all the linked reference documents (including this one), and still find no explanation for why it is discouraged.