Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis-12

Request Review of draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 15)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2023-05-26
Requested 2023-05-12
Authors Peter Saint-Andre , Rich Salz
I-D last updated 2023-05-26
Completed reviews Dnsdir Telechat review of -15 by Petr Špaček
Dnsdir Last Call review of -12 by Petr Špaček (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -12 by Dr. Joseph D. Touch (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -12 by Ines Robles (diff)
Dnsdir Last Call review of -12 by Petr Špaček (diff)
Dnsdir Last Call review of -14 by Petr Špaček (diff)
Secdir Early review of -08 by Derrell Piper (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -08 by Qin Wu (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Ines Robles
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 12 (document currently at 15)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2023-05-26
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


Document: draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis-12
Reviewer: Ines Robles
Review Date: 2023-05-26
IETF LC End Date: 2023-05-26
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

This document specifies procedures for representing and verifying the identity
of application services in TLS. It obsoletes RFC6125. The document is clear. I
just have minor nits-related-questions.

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:

*Section 6.1: "...a list of acceptable reference identifiers...": acceptable
according to whom? Maybe acceptable can be replaced by something like
valid/authorized/approved?, e.g. "...a list of valid reference identifiers..."?
What do you think?

* Section 7.5: "... limiting the number of names that any server can speak
for..." Maybe: "..."Limiting the number of names that any server can
represent..."? What do you think?

* Appendix A: What about to add a sentence such as: ...the title of this
document is different from the title of RFC6125 because...?

Thanks for this document,