Hi Lars and Miral, Thanks for your review and comments, Please see my response for your comments:
>## Comments > >### Boilerplate > >This document uses the RFC2119 keywords "SHOULD", "NOT RECOMMENDED", >"OPTIONAL", "SHOULD NOT", "SHALL", "MAY", "RECOMMENDED", "SHALL NOT", "MUST >NOT", "MUST", and "REQUIRED", but does not contain the recommended RFC8174 >boilerplate. (It contains some text with a similar beginning.) > <M.S.> This is autogenerated by the IETF tools. I just submitted the draft in xml format. > >## 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. > >### Section 4, paragraph 0 >``` > 4. Security Considerations >``` >Why is this a list of bullets instead of just regular text? > <M.S.> I added bullets to make it more readable. > >### Uncited references > >Uncited references: `[RFC5280]`. > <M.S.> I will add the citations for CRL in the appropriate places in the draft. > >### Outdated references > >Document references `draft-ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile-13`, but `-21` is >the latest available revision. <M.S.> I will update the revision. > >### Grammar/style > >#### Section 2.3, paragraph 1 >``` >ional and potentially large fields. Thus a CMP message can be much larger tha > ^^^^ >``` >A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Thus". <M.S.> I will add the comma. >## Notes > Thanks Mohit On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 5:53 AM Lars Eggert <l...@eggert.org> wrote: > Meral, thank you for your review! I have entered a No Objection ballot. > > Lars > > > On 25. Oct 2022, at 09:01, Meral Shirazipour via Datatracker < > nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > > > > Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour > > 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__trac.ietf.org_trac_gen_wiki_GenArtfaq&d=DwIFaQ&c=V9IgWpI5PvzTw83UyHGVSoW3Uc1MFWe5J8PTfkrzVSo&r=J7DgfMyeL26OZuy8d3qTy_h24Ff1NatxSKMgDUj2Kxg&m=NVhV56eadAMWz0LHPlN70NUD6-AsWdzc9iys0GX5wtG5HTBkxB0tCIThFEx33ZrY&s=V1uEHfugi1sN8s_6JOe6BJQT1iQAZWqmTuEACzOjBhM&e= > >. > > > > Document: draft-ietf-ace-cmpv2-coap-transport-05 > > Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour > > Review Date: 2022-10-24 > > IETF LC End Date: 2022-10-27 > > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > > > Summary:This draft is almost ready to be published as Standard RFC, no > other > > comments than those on the list. > > > > Major issues: > > > > Minor issues: > > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > [Page 7] Section 5, "In order to to"--->"In order to" > > > > > > > > -- > > last-call mailing list > > last-c...@ietf.org > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_last-2Dcall&d=DwIFaQ&c=V9IgWpI5PvzTw83UyHGVSoW3Uc1MFWe5J8PTfkrzVSo&r=J7DgfMyeL26OZuy8d3qTy_h24Ff1NatxSKMgDUj2Kxg&m=NVhV56eadAMWz0LHPlN70NUD6-AsWdzc9iys0GX5wtG5HTBkxB0tCIThFEx33ZrY&s=vJm9jmDpMBNUbGNqkrKtJ50EfhPYfusXgRORAqL6NPY&e= > >
_______________________________________________ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
