[lamps] Re: draft-ietf-lamps-macaddress-on-05 ietf last call Genart review

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

inline

On 2/11/2026 13:42, Vijay Gurbani via Datatracker wrote:
> Document: draft-ietf-lamps-macaddress-on
> Title: Media Access Control (MAC) Addresses in X.509 Certificates
> Reviewer: Vijay Gurbani
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
>
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>
> <https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-lamps-macaddress-on-05
> Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
> Review Date: 2026-02-11
> IETF LC End Date: 2026-02-13
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>
> Summary: The I-D is ready to be published as a Standards Track document.
>
> Major issues: 0
>
> Minor issues: 0
>
> Nits/editorial comments: 1
>
> Nits:
>
> - Section 1 (S1), second paragraph: I suspect that the text here is put to
>   discourage implementers from using the IAN extension.  Is there any specific
>   reason why normative (SHOULD NOT) language is not used?
>
Hi Vijay -

I think that was my restatement of a discussion we had.  If you wanted 
to use normative language  in this sentence then "Note that while this 
construct MAY..." is where I'd place it.  As this in the introduction, I 
believe (perhaps mistakenly) BCP14 language is generally not used in 
that section without great need.    The use of this was a "don't care" 
not a "we don't think you should use it".

Mike