[netconf] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types-29: (with COMMENT)

Lars Eggert via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 01 February 2024 11:34 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Lars Eggert via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types@ietf.org, netconf-chairs@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org, mjethanandani@gmail.com, mjethanandani@gmail.com
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Message-ID: <170678726926.50397.7715088197433952492@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2024 03:34:29 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/o9K4jMCgqtoF5SNsC1399aBsBg4>
Subject: [netconf] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types-29: (with COMMENT)

Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types-29: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types-29

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Dale R. Worley for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/AmEmW-zWeMAEWMxu8-Czt4ZB_cE).

## 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.

### Typos

#### Section 2.1.2, paragraph 1
```
-    The following diagram illustrates the hierarchal relationship amongst
+    The following diagram illustrates the hierarchical relationship amongst
+                                                  ++
```

### Outdated references

Reference `[RFC3447]` to `RFC3447`, which was obsoleted by `RFC8017` (this may
be on purpose).

Reference `[RFC7525]` to `RFC7525`, which was obsoleted by `RFC9325` (this may
be on purpose).

Reference `[RFC6125]` to `RFC6125`, which was obsoleted by `RFC9525` (this may
be on purpose).

### Grammar/style

#### Section 1.1, paragraph 5
```
 placeholder value for binary data has has been base64 encoded. This placeho
                                   ^^^^^^^
```
Possible typo: you repeated a word.

#### Section 2.3, paragraph 59
```
ed-value-format' based identity MUST by set (e.g., cms-encrypted-data-format
                                     ^^
```
Did you maybe mean "buy" or "be"?

#### Section 2.3, paragraph 59
```
ed-value-format' based identity MUST by set (e.g., cms-enveloped-data-format
                                     ^^
```
Did you maybe mean "buy" or "be"?

## 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

[netconf] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-iet… Lars Eggert via Datatracker
Re: [netconf] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft… Kent Watsen