Hi Lars and Miral,
Thanks for your review and comments, Please see my response for your comments:
>## Comments
>
>### Boilerplate
>
>This document uses the RFC2119 keywords "SHOULD", "NOT RECOMMENDED",
>"OPTIONAL", "SHOULD NOT", "SHALL", "MAY", "RECOMMENDED", "SHALL NOT", "MUST
>NOT", "MUST", and "REQUIRED", but does not contain the recommended RFC8174
>boilerplate. (It contains some text with a similar beginning.)
>
<M.S.> This is autogenerated by the IETF tools. I just submitted the draft in xml format.
>
>## Nits
>
>All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
>address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
>automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
>will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
>did with these suggestions.
>
>### Section 4, paragraph 0
>```
> 4. Security Considerations
>```
>Why is this a list of bullets instead of just regular text?
>
>### Boilerplate
>
>This document uses the RFC2119 keywords "SHOULD", "NOT RECOMMENDED",
>"OPTIONAL", "SHOULD NOT", "SHALL", "MAY", "RECOMMENDED", "SHALL NOT", "MUST
>NOT", "MUST", and "REQUIRED", but does not contain the recommended RFC8174
>boilerplate. (It contains some text with a similar beginning.)
>
<M.S.> This is autogenerated by the IETF tools. I just submitted the draft in xml format.
>
>## Nits
>
>All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
>address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
>automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
>will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
>did with these suggestions.
>
>### Section 4, paragraph 0
>```
> 4. Security Considerations
>```
>Why is this a list of bullets instead of just regular text?
>
<M.S.> I added bullets to make it more readable.
>
>### Uncited references
>
>Uncited references: `[RFC5280]`.
>
>### Uncited references
>
>Uncited references: `[RFC5280]`.
>
<M.S.> I will add the citations for CRL in the appropriate places in the draft.
>
>### Outdated references
>
>Document references `draft-ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile-13`, but `-21` is
>the latest available revision.
<M.S.> I will update the revision.
>
>
>### Outdated references
>
>Document references `draft-ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile-13`, but `-21` is
>the latest available revision.
<M.S.> I will update the revision.
>
>### Grammar/style
>
>#### Section 2.3, paragraph 1
>```
>ional and potentially large fields. Thus a CMP message can be much larger tha
> ^^^^
>```
>A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Thus".
<M.S.> I will add the comma.
>## Notes
>
>
>#### Section 2.3, paragraph 1
>```
>ional and potentially large fields. Thus a CMP message can be much larger tha
> ^^^^
>```
>A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Thus".
<M.S.> I will add the comma.
>## Notes
>
Thanks
Mohit
On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 5:53 AM Lars Eggert <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Meral, thank you for your review! I have entered a No Objection ballot.
Lars
> On 25. Oct 2022, at 09:01, Meral Shirazipour via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__trac.ietf.org_trac_gen_wiki_GenArtfaq&d=DwIFaQ&c=V9IgWpI5PvzTw83UyHGVSoW3Uc1MFWe5J8PTfkrzVSo&r=J7DgfMyeL26OZuy8d3qTy_h24Ff1NatxSKMgDUj2Kxg&m=NVhV56eadAMWz0LHPlN70NUD6-AsWdzc9iys0GX5wtG5HTBkxB0tCIThFEx33ZrY&s=V1uEHfugi1sN8s_6JOe6BJQT1iQAZWqmTuEACzOjBhM&e= >.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-ace-cmpv2-coap-transport-05
> Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour
> Review Date: 2022-10-24
> IETF LC End Date: 2022-10-27
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>
> Summary:This draft is almost ready to be published as Standard RFC, no other
> comments than those on the list.
>
> Major issues:
>
> Minor issues:
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
> [Page 7] Section 5, "In order to to"--->"In order to"
>
>
>
> --
> last-call mailing list
> last-call@xxxxxxxx
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_last-2Dcall&d=DwIFaQ&c=V9IgWpI5PvzTw83UyHGVSoW3Uc1MFWe5J8PTfkrzVSo&r=J7DgfMyeL26OZuy8d3qTy_h24Ff1NatxSKMgDUj2Kxg&m=NVhV56eadAMWz0LHPlN70NUD6-AsWdzc9iys0GX5wtG5HTBkxB0tCIThFEx33ZrY&s=vJm9jmDpMBNUbGNqkrKtJ50EfhPYfusXgRORAqL6NPY&e=
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
