Subject: [lamps] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030est-clarify-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 12:20:31 -0700

Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030est-clarify-09: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030est-clarify/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for this document, I found it easy to read.

No concerns, just some minor nits:

1.  Introduction

   This document deals with errata numbers [errata4384], [errata5107],
   [errata5108], and [errata5904].

   This document deals explicitely with [errata5107] and [errata5904] in
   Section 3. [errata5108] is dealt with in section Section 5.

   [errata4384] is closed by correcting the ASN.1 Module in Section 4.

Typo on explicitly, but I would propose merge these three paragraphs into one:

E.g.
   This document deals with [errata5107] and [errata5904] in
   Section 3. [errata5108] is dealt with in Section 5.  [errata4384] is
   closed by correcting the ASN.1 Module in Section 4.

There are also some paragraph indentation issues that could be tweaked in
sections 3.2.3 & 3.2.4, or if the tooling is tricky to fix this then you could
leave a note to flag it for the RFC editor.

7.  Security Considerations

applies also => also apply