On Sun, Nov 3, 2024 at 10:34 AM Lars Eggert via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Lars Eggert > Review result: Ready with Issues > > # tsvart review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6712bis-07 > > CC @larseggert > > This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review > team's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were > written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the > document's authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and > also to the IETF discussion list for information. > > When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this > review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC > tsv-art@xxxxxxxx if you reply to or forward this review. > > ## Comments > > ### Section 3.1, paragraph 1 > ``` > Implementations MUST support HTTP/1.0 [RFC1945] and SHOULD support > HTTP/1.1 [RFC9112]. > ``` > It's almost 2025. Can we still not recommend more modern versions of > HTTP, and also enforce the use of TLS? > > ### Inclusive language > > Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see > https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more > guidance: > > * Term `man`; alternatives might be `individual`, `people`, `person` Two counterpoints. First, "man-in-the-middle" is a term of the art. It does not lend itself to word swapping. I don't think it is wise to invent new terms for a well established term. Especially for folks who only have rudimentary English language skills. Second, DEI is an American movement. While the world placates America and follows its lead, I question the wisdom in forcing American controversies on the world. > ## 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. > > ### Outdated references > > Document references `draft-ietf-lamps-rfc4210bis-13`, but `-14` is the latest > available revision. > > Reference `[RFC5246]` to `RFC5246`, which was obsoleted by `RFC8446` (this may > be on purpose). > > Reference `[RFC2510]` to `RFC2510`, which was obsoleted by `RFC4210` (this may > be on purpose). > > ### Grammar/style > > #### Section 3.5, paragraph 2 > ``` > 'cmp' to ease interworking in a multi-vendor environment. The CMP client nee > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ``` > This word is normally spelled as one. > > ## Notes > > This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the > [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into > individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT]. > > [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md > [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments > [IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool Jeff -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
