Behcet, Replying here is sufficient. Thank you for the time it took to do the review.
Deb On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 11:33 AM Behcet Sarikaya <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Brendan, > > > After reviewing draft-ietf-suit-report-15 I consider my review comments > have been satisfied. > I think that the document is ready. > > I don't know if I have to modify my review from way back August 8, 2025 to > reflect the new review result. Probably the secretariat will let me know. > > Regards, > Behcet > > > On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 5:42 AM Brendan Moran < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Behcet, >> >> Thank you for your review. I believe that draft-ietf-suit-report-15 >> resolves the bulk of the nits/editorial comments that you raised. In >> particular, we have addressed the typos, the COSE definition, the >> reference to RFC9019, and Russ's secdir review. However, we have not >> removed sections 9.2-9.8. These have been left in to support the >> registrations that have been requested of IANA. >> >> Best Regards, >> Brendan >> >> On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 5:13 PM Behcet Sarikaya via Datatracker >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Document: draft-ietf-suit-report >> > Title: Secure Reporting of Update Status >> > Reviewer: Behcet Sarikaya >> > Review result: Not Ready >> > >> > 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-suit-report-14 >> > Reviewer: Behcet Sarikaya >> > Review Date: 2025-08-08 >> > IETF LC End Date: 2025-08-11 >> > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat >> > >> > Summary: >> > The draft is about updating firmware of IoT devices, it defines a >> logging >> > container which creates a lightweight feedback mechanism for developers >> in the >> > event >> > that an update or boot fails in the manifest processor. The >> container is >> > defined in CDDL format. >> > Major issues: >> > N/A >> > Minor issues: >> > Yes. >> > Nits/editorial comments: >> > Sec. 3 includded -> included >> > Sec. 4 decisiosn -> decisions >> > Sec. 4.2 an unusupported COSE COSE undefined >> > As I write this I discovered another typo unusupported -> unsupported >> > Section 9. >> > Media types issue: I think that sections 9.2 - 9.8 can be omitted >> > Sec. 10. I suggest checking Ross' secdir review >> > >> > I think that RFC 9019 is very informative and useful in reading this >> draft but >> > I could not see a reference to RFC 9019. >> > >> > >> > >> >
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
