1.6 KiB
IETF Senior Review
Findings
High: the draft is credible, but it still reads more like an architecture note than a standards-ready specification
The structure is sound and the layering is disciplined. What it still lacks is the slight extra formality that makes an Internet-Draft feel publishable: clearer field requirements, fewer conceptual transitions, and less reliance on explanatory prose in Sections 5 through 8.
Medium: the abstract should emphasize scoped issuer opinion sooner
That point is present later in the document and is central to avoiding misuse. It should appear earlier and more explicitly in the abstract.
Medium: IANA and references remain intentionally provisional
That is acceptable at this stage, but before circulation beyond an internal drafting loop, the document should either define a tiny initial model registry or clearly state that all model identifiers are profile-specific pending later work.
Medium: terminology is good, but a few terms could be made more standards-native
Portable Trust Assertion and Local Trust State are useful distinctions, though they currently read slightly informal. Tightening those definitions would improve the document.
Open questions
- Is the intended status Experimental explicitly stated in the draft text anywhere, or only in the cycle metadata?
- Should the document explicitly note that it does not define trust aggregation across issuers?
Residual publishability risk
This is a strong first version. The remaining work is mainly to replace architectural vagueness with just enough protocol discipline to withstand IETF-style scrutiny.