[OPSAWG] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12: (with COMMENT)

[Lars Eggert via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12: 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-opsawg-tlstm-update/



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

# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Joel Halpern for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/VI00LPj0gVfsGW_qOfw9JlGAJdE).

## Comments

### Paragraph 2
```
                Updates to the TLS Transport Model for SNMP
                     draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-12
```
Was there a mibdoctors review of this I-D? Should there be?

### Section 1, paragraph 1
```
     This document updates and clarifies how the rules of [RFC6353] apply
     when using Transport Layer Security (TLS) or Datagram Transport Layer
     Security (DTLS) versions later than 1.2.  This document jointly
     refers to these two protocols as "(D)TLS".  The update also
     incorporates the [RFC8996] update, which prohibits the use of TLS
     versions prior to TLS 1.2.
```
Should this document then not also obsolete RFC8996?

### Missing references

No reference entries found for these items, which were mentioned in the text:
`[RFC3413]`, `[RFC2579]`, `[RFC3411]`, `[RFC2578]`, and `[RFC2580]`.

### Uncited references

Document updates `RFC6353`, but does not cite it as a reference, which is a bit
odd.

## 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### Outdated references

Reference `[RFC5953]` to `RFC5953`, which was obsoleted by `RFC6353` (this may
be on purpose).

Reference `[RFC5246]` to `RFC5246`, which was obsoleted by `RFC8446` (this may
be on purpose).

### Grammar/style

#### Section 4, paragraph 28
```
s not specify converting to lowercase so this involves an extra step). This
                                     ^^^
```
Use a comma before "so" if it connects two independent clauses (unless they are
closely connected and short).

#### Section 4, paragraph 90
```
nd this hash value MUST match exactly or the connection MUST NOT be establis
                                     ^^^
```
Use a comma before "or" if it connects two independent clauses (unless they are
closely connected and short).

## 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