I have reviewed this document as part of the Ops area directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Ops area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last-call comments.

This document describes the Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) Certificate Management Protocol (CMP). It obsoletes RFC 4210 and RFC9480, and in various parts of the draft, the importance of maintaining compatibility with older versions when updating the CMP protocol has been emphasized. Here are some nits.

## NITS:
- Expand on first use – CMS
- s/when the validity of the the "old with old" / when the validity of the "old with old"/
- s/Updated the the page header to 'CMP' / Updated the page header to 'CMP' /

The following idnits warnings should be attended:
draft-ietf-lamps-rfc4210bis-14.txt:
-(1840): Line appears to be too long, but this could be caused by non-ascii characters in UTF-8 encoding
  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     No issues found here.
  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  == There are 2 instances of lines with non-ascii characters in the document.
  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  == There are 3 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses
     in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should be changed.
  -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC9480, but the
     abstract doesn't seem to directly say this.  It does mention RFC9480
     though, so this could be OK.
  -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC5912, but the
     abstract doesn't seem to directly say this.  It does mention RFC5912
     though, so this could be OK.
  -- The abstract seems to indicate that this document updates RFC9480, but
     the header doesn't have an 'Updates:' line to match this.
…..
Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 10 warnings (==), 34 comments (--).
Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above.
Thanks for your contribution!


Best Regards,
Ran Chen