I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-ippm-encrypted-pdmv2. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/>.

Note that this is a very quick review.

Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document as NO OBJECTION.

The following are other issues I found with this document that SHOULD be corrected before publication:

- Since the document indicates that implementations SHOULD support PDM, unencrypted PDMv2 and encrypted PDMv2, should this spect obsolete/deprecate RFC 8250?

- Related to the former, sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 describe use cases where a server does not understand PDM or PDMv2, but the previous paragraph indicates that implementations SHOULD support all. Maybe some clarification would be helpful.

- Section 6.1: how can we guarantee at protocol specification that PDM data is kept confidential between the intended parties? Not sure this can be specified.

The following are minor issues (typos, misspelling, minor text improvements) with the document:

- The use of acronyms should be harmonized. For example, in the packet format of the unencrypted PDMv2 header, some terms are used as acronyms (e.g., ScaleDTLR), but others not (e.g., Delta Time Last Received). Also the capitalization is different as what was used in previous sections.

- s/IPsec/IPsec