I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-turner-additional-cms-ri-choices-03 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2010-04-16 IETF LC End Date: 2010-04-19 IESG Telechat date: (if known) Summary: Very close to ready for publication as a proposed standard. I have a couple of mainly editorial questions. Note: This draft contains ASN.1 definitions. I did not attempt to validate them mechanically. Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: -- Section 1, last sentence: "However, there MAY be more revocation status information than necessary or there MAY be less revocation status information than necessary." Are those really normative statements, or just observations? -- section 4, last paragraph, and section 5, last paragraph: You mention the combination of "Unprotected and [/or] authenticated" responses a few times in these sections. Is that really meant to be "authenticated" rather than "unauthenticated"? -- Appendices Appendix A.1 is described as normative. I have a mild concern about readers reading far enough to normative material in an appendix. Would it make sense to have text in the main body that references the appendix as containing normative material? _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf