Review is partially done. Another assignment may be needed to complete it.
Document: draft-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile Title: TLS/DTLS 1.3 Profiles for the Internet of Things Reviewer: Menachem Dodge Review result: Has Nits Hi, I have been selected as the Operational Directorate (opsdir) reviewer for this Internet-Draft. The Operational Directorate reviews all operational and management-related Internet-Drafts to ensure alignment with operational best practices and that adequate operational considerations are covered. A complete set of _"Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management in IETF Specifications"_ can be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis/. While these comments are primarily for the Operations and Management Area Directors (Ops ADs), the authors should consider them alongside other feedback received. - Document: draft-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile-21 - Reviewer: Menachem Dodge - Review Date: 4th June 2026 - Intended Status: Standards Track --- ## Summary - Has Nits: This document is basically ready for publication but has nits that should be considered prior to publication. This document is a companion to RFC 7925, defining TLS/DTLS 1.3 profiles for IoT devices. Additionally, it updates RFC 7925 with respect to the X.509 certificate profile and ciphersuite requirements. This document offers comprehensive guidance for deploying secure communication in resource-constrained IoT environments. It outlines best practices for configuring TLS/DTLS 1.3 to meet the unique needs of IoT devices. The document aims to facilitate the development of secure and efficient IoT deployments and promote the broad adoption of secure communication standards. Unfortunately I do not have a background in TLS / DTLS or their profiles. It may well be due to my lack of background that I find the document very hard to read and that it did not flow for me. Thus I request an additional reviewer. --- ## Nits A terminology section would be very helpful or at least a reference to one in another RFC. The introduction provides background to the subject and a heads-up of what should be expected in the document, which is very helpful. I assume that sections 4 to 16 cover the best practices mentioned and section 17 to 20 cover the X.509 certificate profile and ciphersuite requirements. In my opinion if the introduction would explicitly state the aim of each of the following paragraphs this would make the document more readable. As a general comment when there are references to other RFC documents it is very helpful if the paragraph in that document is explicitly stated. Where the paragraphs were quoted I found it much easier to find the information in the other RFCs. Some specific examples: 1. Section 17.2.1 should refer to the paragraph within RFC 5280 which states that "root CS certificates must have a non-empty subject field". 2. Similarly, section 17.2.4 should refer to the paragraph in RFC 5280. 3. Same for section 17.2.5 should refer to the paragraph in RFC 5280 4. Same for section 17.3.4 should refer to the paragraph in RFC 5280 Thank you kindly. Best Regards, Menachem _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
