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 .       Document: draft-ietf-cose-msg-18 Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour Review Date: 2016-09-27 IETF LC End Date:  2016-09-28 IESG Telechat date: 2016-09-29       Summary: This draft is ready to be published as Standards Track RFC but I have some comments.   Major issues: Minor issues:   " The JOSE working group produced a set of documents    [RFC7515][RFC7516][RFC7517][RFC7518] using JSON that specified how to    process encryption, signatures and message authentication (MAC)    operations, and how to encode keys using JSON.  This document defines    the CBOR Object Encryption and Signing (COSE) standard which does the    same thing for the CBOR encoding format. "   Was there a reason to not have multiple documents for CBOR? It would be good to add this reason to section 1 in the above mentioned paragraph.         Nits/editorial comments:   -[Page 5], "services for IoT, using CBOR"---->"services for IoT, and using CBOR" -[Page 5], "[RFC7515][RFC7516][RFC7517][RFC7518]" , please check hyperref for 2nd and 4th reference (they don't appear in html view https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cose-msg-18) -[Page 5], "message authentication (MAC)"---->"Message Authentication Code (MAC)" -[Page 6], "There currently is"---->"There is currently" -[Page 7], "For this, reason"---->"For this reason," -[Page 8] "this works consider"---->"this works, consider" -general, in many section, e.g. 16.2: when listing terms+ definition, it would be clearer to add ":" in front of the term. -Section 19.2 refrences to be updated e.g. [I-D.greevenbosch-appsawg-cbor-cddl], is not v09   Best Regards, Meral --- Meral Shirazipour Ericsson Research www.ericsson.com