Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses-15
review-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses-15-opsdir-lc-bonica-2017-11-21-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses |
|---|---|---|
| Requested rev. | no specific revision (document currently at 18) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
| Deadline | 2017-10-09 | |
| Requested | 2017-09-25 | |
| Authors | Alexey Melnikov, Wei Chuang | |
| Draft last updated | 2017-11-21 | |
| Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Adam Montville
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -05 by Stewart Bryant (diff) Genart Telechat review of -06 by Stewart Bryant (diff) Genart Telechat review of -08 by Stewart Bryant (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -15 by Ron Bonica (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -15 by Adam Montville (diff) Genart Last Call review of -15 by Stewart Bryant (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Ron Bonica |
| State | Completed | |
| Review | review-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses-15-opsdir-lc-bonica-2017-11-21 | |
| Reviewed rev. | 15 (document currently at 18) | |
| Review result | Ready | |
| Review completed: | 2017-11-21 |
Review
review-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses-15-opsdir-lc-bonica-2017-11-21
Folks,
I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
Summary: Ready for publication
This document defines a new name form for inclusion in the otherName
field of an X.509 Subject Alternative Name and Issuer Alternative
Name extension that allows a certificate subject to be associated
with an Internationalized Email Address.
I confess to knowing nothing about this topic. But the draft is sufficiently well-written that I understood exactly what the authors were doing and why they were doing it. I would vote YES.
Major issues:
None
Minor issues:
None
Nits:
None