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]
