Document: draft-ietf-satp-usecases Title: Secure Asset Transfer (SAT) Use Cases Reviewer: Joel Halpern Review result: Ready with Issues
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-satp-usecases-10 Reviewer: Joel Halpern Review Date: 2026-09-24 IETF LC End Date: 2026-10-07 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: This document is ready for publication as an Informational RFC. I think it could be improved in a few ways. Major issues: I do not know if this belongs in this document or the underlying architecture document. There seems to be an assumption about the trust model between the various digital asset systems. It is unclear exactly what the underlying trust model is, or how it is known and understood by the participants. I think the draft would be improved with clarification on this point. Minor issues: Given that the Secure Asset Transfer Architecture [SATA] is cited as a source for security considerations and other aspects in this draft, I believe that the citation should be normative rather than informative. I found some aspects of the tone of the document unfortunate. I have no argument with the basic claim that DLTs can be useful for the cases cited. I am skeptical of the claim made in few places in the document that such tools are necessary to meet the goals. I would prefer the draft focus on utility rather than necessity. Nits/editorial comments: I think a careful grammar check would improve readability and save effort by the RPC. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
