Hello Paul, Thank you for your detailed review and insightful feedback. We have just uploaded -06 to the Datatracker: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5019bis/. We believe -06 addresses all the concerns that you raised. Please let us know if there are still unresolved items. Thanks, Corey -----Original Message----- From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2024 4:27 PM To: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5019bis.all@xxxxxxxx Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@xxxxxxxx>; last-call@xxxxxxxx; LAMPS <spasm@xxxxxxxx> Subject: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5019bis-05 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://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5019bis-05 Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat Review Date: 2024-03-23 IETF LC End Date: 2024-03-29 IESG Telechat date: ? Summary: This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the review. ISSUES: MINOR: 4 1) MINOR: Abstract: The abstract from RFC 5019 has not been carried over to this bis. It has been replaced by an explanation for why RFC 5019 is being updated. Once this is published this explanation text will cease to be relevant to a new reader. I suggest bringing back the abstract from RFC 5019. (Possibly with updates.) The explanation for why the bis was made can be moved to an appendix. That appendix should also include the list of substantive changes now at the end of section 1. 2) MINOR: Duplications from RFC 6960 Sections 3.1.1 and 3.2.1 now includes ASN.1 definitions copied from RFC 6960. I suggest that you at least make clear that these are copies and are not changed from RFC 6960. Or reconsider whether including them substantially improves the document. 3) MINOR: Security considerations You should consider adding security considerations discussing the implications of the backward compatibility with RFC 5019. (E.g., continuing to support SHA-1.) 4) MINOR: Examples Is there a reason why Appendix A containing examples has been removed?
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
