[Rats] Re: Mahesh Jethanandani's No Objection on draft-ietf-rats-msg-wrap-21: (with COMMENT)

Thomas Fossati <thomas.fossati@linaro.org> Tue, 02 December 2025 18:13 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <176465358235.3802732.6172812483262656063@dt-datatracker-5bd94c585b-wk4l4>
In-Reply-To: <176465358235.3802732.6172812483262656063@dt-datatracker-5bd94c585b-wk4l4>
From: Thomas Fossati <thomas.fossati@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2025 19:13:12 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+1=6ycgE9saT2Ur23Aj8+DjqLmb7pDMKVGUp_WnA+qa2K=z8Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-ID-Hash: OOSLJOJFIIL7GUN777M5MAVKHELVN4M4
CC: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-rats-msg-wrap@ietf.org, rats-chairs@ietf.org, rats@ietf.org
Precedence: list
Subject: [Rats] Re: Mahesh Jethanandani's No Objection on draft-ietf-rats-msg-wrap-21: (with COMMENT)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/5cYfPfEwafcnm39Yec2-UYQCTbs>

Hi Mahesh, thank you for the review.

On Tue, 2 Dec 2025 at 06:33, Mahesh Jethanandani via Datatracker
<noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Abstract", paragraph 0
> > Abstract

I'm not sure. Is this a typo?  Have you forgotten to add a comment?

> I will note that the Shepherd Report called for an IOTDIR review to be done on
> the document. An early review was done on -04 version of the docuement, which
> put the state as "Almost ready". We are at version -21 now. A response from the
> authors indicates a follow-up was needed, but none can be seen in the mailing
> list.

Searching my inbox, I found an email from Mohit saying that he had
reviewed -17 again and was happy with the changes. However, looking at
the distribution list, I see that this conversation was private to the
IoTdir chairs, Mohit and CMW editors, shepherd, RATS chairs and
responsible AD.

> The IANA review of this document seems to not have concluded yet.
>
> No reference entries found for these items, which were mentioned in the text:
> [draft-ftbs-rats-msg-wrap].

Ah! This is the old repo.  GitHub handles the redirection transparently.

> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> NIT
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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.
>
> Section 3.1, paragraph 8
> >  in Section 8 of [RFC9334]. Note that that an Appraisal Policy may refer to
> >                                  ^^^^^^^^^
> Possible typo: you repeated a word.
>
> Section 6, paragraph 16
> > ntial Computing Consortium. The organisation hosts two libraries which allow
> >                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Do not mix variants of the same word ("organisation" and "organization") within
> a single text.
>
> Section 11.1, paragraph 21
> > e list of currently open issues for this documents can be found at https://gi
> >                                     ^^^^
> The singular determiner "this" may not agree with the plural noun "documents".
> Did you mean "these"?

Thanks - they have been addressed in this pull request [1].

cheers!

[1] https://github.com/ietf-rats-wg/draft-ietf-rats-msg-wrap/pull/267

[Rats] Mahesh Jethanandani's No Objection on draf… Mahesh Jethanandani via Datatracker
[Rats] Re: Mahesh Jethanandani's No Objection on … Thomas Fossati